Does ω0 = ωf when radius of circular motion changes?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a particle moving in circular motion on a frictionless table, with a string that changes the radius of its circular path. The original poster is exploring the relationship between angular velocities before and after the radius change, as well as the kinetic energy gained during this process.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conservation of angular momentum and the implications of changing the radius on angular velocity. There are questions about the assumptions regarding constant angular velocity and the relationship between kinetic energy and potential energy in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering insights and questioning the original poster's assumptions. Some participants suggest reconsidering the relationship between angular velocity and kinetic energy, while others emphasize the importance of understanding the work done when pulling the string.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the conservation of angular momentum and the potential energy involved, with some participants noting the challenges of applying energy methods in this scenario. The original poster's understanding of the problem setup and the definitions of terms is also under scrutiny.

Vitani11
Messages
275
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


A particle of mass m is moving on a frictionless horizontal table and is attached to a massless string that passes through a tiny hole of negligible radius in the table, and I am holding the other end of the string underneath the table. Initially the particle is moving in a circle of radius r0 with angular velocity ω0, but I now pull the string down until the radius reaches r. How much kinetic energy did the particle gain?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I integrated to find the potential energy and I know the force is conservative for the kinetic energy = -potential energy. Is that right? I also figured that the final angular velocity is the same as the initial angular velocity. Is that correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vitani11 said:
I also figured that the final angular velocity is the same as the initial angular velocity. Is that correct?
Have you ever seen an ice skater start to spin with arms and one leg extended and then pull in the arms and leg. Does the skater's shoulders stay at the same rate before and after? How might this apply to your current problem?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vitani11
Have you ever watched figure skaters - how they start spinning with their arms stretched outward. But as they bring their arms in toward their body, their angular velocity increases significantly?

Edit: phinds, you beat me to the punch. :)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vitani11
TomHart said:
Edit: phinds, you beat me to the punch. :)
Yeah, I'm feeling punchy today :smile:

EDIT: and by the way, you really should not have given him the conclusion. Notice that I was asking him to think it through himself. That's really more appropriate for PF.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vitani11 and TomHart
Are you applying a torque to the mass about the center of rotation by pulling on the string?
 
Vitani11 said:
the final angular velocity is the same as the initial angular velocity
If that were true, how could any KE have been gained?
 
Fill in the relevant equations.
You mentioned potential energy. What potential energy are you thinking of?
How much work did you do by pulling the string?
 
Khashishi said:
How much work did you do by pulling the string?
Reading between the lines, I would guess Vitani tried to calculate that by multiplying the centripetal force by the displacement. The problem with that is knowing the velocity at all points. Vitani wrongly took the angular velocity to be constant for this purpose.
In short, energy is not the easiest way to solve this.
 
I can't see how to solve this without using energy. The trick is that you have to write the angular velocity in terms of the energy, and integrate energy as a function of radius.
 
  • #10
Khashishi said:
I can't see how to solve this without using energy. The trick is that you have to write the angular velocity in terms of the energy, and integrate energy as a function of radius.
See the hint in post #5.
 
  • #11
Right, of course. I had a brain malfunction.
 
  • #12
I used the fact that angular momentum is conserved (Torque is 0 since the direction of the force lies along the same line as the distance to the mass) to find the final angular velocity in terms of known variables and then used conservation of energy to solve. Thank you for the help.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
885