Does Rotating an Object Absorb Energy?

AI Thread Summary
Rotating an object does absorb energy, and the energy transferred to rotation can be calculated through the principles of angular motion, which are analogous to linear motion. Both angular momentum and linear momentum follow conservation laws, but they operate independently of each other. Angular quantities, defined in terms of angles like radians, have distinct equations of motion separate from linear quantities. However, the angular versions of mass, momentum, forces, and energy are fundamentally linked to their linear counterparts, as rotational kinetic energy derives from the translational kinetic energy of individual mass elements. Understanding these relationships clarifies how energy is absorbed during rotation.
AliensRule77
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I took physics in school, but our class kind of skipped over rotational motion, so I was just reading about it myself. I was wondering about whether rotating an object absorbed some of the energy put into it and, if so, how to calculate how much is transferred to the rotation.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Everything that happens in rotational motion is analogous to what can happen in linear motion. You can have conservation of angular momentum just like conservation of linear momentum. You can angularly accelerate an object by applying a force just like you can linearly accelerate an object. When you apply a force F to an object you do work on it and give it kinetic energy.
 
Ok so then the angular momentum and linear momentum both work similarily but don't affect each other directly? Or am I wrong?
 
AliensRule77 said:
Ok so then the angular momentum and linear momentum both work similarily but don't affect each other directly? Or am I wrong?

When objects move we use linear motion. When objects rotate about axes, we use angular motion.

Linear quantities are usally defined in terms of distance whereas angular quantities are usually defined in terms of angles, whose fundamental measure is the radian. The radian is a fundamental unit of angles just like the meter is for length. On a most fundamental level these two quantities have no relation to each other.

All the angular quantities therefore have their own equations of motion completely independent of the equations of the ones of linear motion.

Mass, Momentum, forces and energy is a different story.
The angular version of these quantities is heavily dependent on the linear version. In fact the angular version of these quantities is usually the sum of all the linear components of the various rotating particles. The rotational kinetic energy is the sum of the translational kinetic energy of each individual mass element involved in the rotation. Same thing for momentum, mass and force. Rotational work is the work done by the tangential force, not the centripetal force etc...
 
Ok thank you, I think I understand it now.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top