Crank Journal Turning w/ Attached Bar: Does it Ever Stop Moving?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RichFoster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Crank Journal Turning
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the motion of a crank journal with an attached bar, specifically examining whether the bar ever truly stops moving. The participants analyze the relationship between velocity and motion, concluding that while the bar's velocity may reach zero at its maximum height (Ymax), it does not imply that the bar is at rest for any finite time interval. The consensus is that an object is considered in motion unless it can be shown to have no change in position over a defined time interval (dt), emphasizing the need for precise definitions in discussing motion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly velocity and acceleration.
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically derivatives and their implications on motion.
  • Knowledge of sinusoidal motion and its characteristics.
  • Basic mathematical notation, including the distinction between finite and infinitesimal time intervals.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of sinusoidal motion in mechanical systems.
  • Study the relationship between velocity and acceleration in classical mechanics.
  • Learn about the mathematical definitions of motion and rest in physics.
  • Investigate the concept of instantaneous velocity and its relevance in motion analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in the principles of motion and dynamics in mechanical systems.

  • #31
RichFoster said:
1) I am proving my assertion in terms of position and time by looking for any period of time where position has not changed.

But your assertion is just a definition.

2) The ball example, yes, acceleration vector is not zero when V=0, which is also more evidence that the ball itself never ceases it's motion, [...]

Depends on your definition of "ceases its motion".

So here it seems we have at least two pieces of evidence, shown by the math, to prove that the motion has not stopped ("paused for any period of time", "ceased motion for any period of time", "has no change of position for any period of time")

Yeah, but what you're doing is explaining the precise physical conditions in which your definition of "stopped" is satisfied. Perhaps you're thinking that you're proving the validity of your definition? Definitions are assumed to be true so of course you can prove they're valid. But there's no physics involved, just semantics (the meanings of the terms you're defining).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
RichFoster said:
And for me, the definition of "stopped motion" or "continuous motion" comes from the math which defines the definition, not the other way around.
Definitions come from humans, who need a short-hand for something that would take too long to state every time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Herman Trivilino, sophiecentaur and jbriggs444

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
2K