Does an impulse contribute to both linear and angular momentum?

AI Thread Summary
An impulse applied to a sphere affects both its linear and angular momentum, but these two types of momentum are fundamentally different and cannot be directly compared or combined. When a force is applied, the linear impulse is calculated as FΔt, while the angular impulse is FrΔt, where r is the radius. This distinction highlights that linear impulse and angular impulse have different units (Ns for linear and Nms for angular), making them incompatible for addition or subtraction. The discussion emphasizes that while both impulses result from the same force, they contribute separately to the overall momentum of the object. Understanding this separation is crucial for analyzing motion in physics.
etotheipi
As an analogue, if 5J of work is done on an object then the linear KE might increase by 2J and the angular by 3J, so the work is divided between the linear and rotational forms.

Now suppose there is a sphere sliding on a frictionless surface. If an impulse of magnitude 1Ns is applied to the edge of the sphere (in a small enough time interval so that it can be considered to be in one direction only), does the impulse divide between change in linear and angular momentum?

If not, then for instance if the sphere is of radius 1m, the angular impulse is 1Ns and the linear impulse is also 1Ns, which means the 'overall' momentum of the sphere increases by 2Ns.

The question arises from a sort of similar situation in part b) of question A1 under this link https://www.aapt.org/physicsteam/2019/upload/USAPhO-2018-Solutions.pdf, where the same impulse of friction has been applied to both the rotational momentum and linear momentum separately instead of splitting up.

Sorry if I'm missing anything obvious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
etotheipi said:
If not, then for instance if the sphere is of radius 1m, the angular impulse is 1Ns and the linear impulse is also 1Ns, which means the 'overall' momentum of the sphere increases by 2Ns.
Angular impulse would be torque times time, so the units would be Nms not Ns. So in this sense the situation between rotational KE and linear KE is very different. Both of those are different parts of the same thing with the same underlying units. But linear impulse and angular impulse are not parts of the same thing, they are different things with different units. You cannot add, subtract, split, or otherwise compare them.
 
  • Informative
Likes etotheipi
Dale said:
Angular impulse would be torque times time, so the units would be Nms not Ns. So in this sense the situation between rotational KE and linear KE is very different. Both of those are different parts of the same thing with the same underlying units. But linear impulse and angular impulse are not parts of the same thing, they are different things with different units. You cannot add, subtract, split, or otherwise compare them.

Right yes that was quite sloppy of me! I suppose then if the force is of magnitude F, we get a linear impulse of F \Delta t in addition to an angular impulse Fr \Delta t. Which means that if the linear impulse is \Delta p, the angular impulse is r \Delta p.
 
Yes, assuming ##r## is constant during the impulse.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top