Finding angular velocity using conservation of energy

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the angular velocity of a cylinder using conservation of energy principles. Participants question why the answer key uses 2.5 J for kinetic energy instead of 6.25 J, which is the total gravitational potential energy. It is clarified that while all gravitational potential energy converts to kinetic energy, the distribution between translational and rotational kinetic energy must be considered. The conversation highlights that once the cylinder leaves the table, it no longer rolls without slipping, affecting the relationship between linear velocity and angular velocity. Ultimately, understanding these energy conversions and conditions is crucial for solving the problem accurately.
Coderhk
Messages
59
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



In the document below I need to try and find the angular velocity
I need help on part b

Homework Equations


F=ma
KE_Translational= 0.5mv^2
KE-Rotational= 0.5Iw^2
Assuming g=10m/s^2

The Attempt at a Solution


I have the answer key attached with the question but I am not sure why the answer key uses 2.5J as the sum of the kinetic energy. Why wouldn't the energy be 6.25J instead. 6.25J is the total gravitational potentia; energy relative to the ground. So shouldn't all that energy be converted into kinetic energy?
 

Attachments

  • a.png
    a.png
    31.8 KB · Views: 618
  • b.png
    b.png
    14.2 KB · Views: 626
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Coderhk said:

Homework Statement



In the document below I need to try and find the angular velocity

Homework Equations


F=ma
KE_Translational= 0.5mv^2
KE-Rotational= 0.5Iw^2
Assuming g=10m/s^2

The Attempt at a Solution


I have the answer key attached with the question but I am not sure why the answer key uses 2.5J as the sum of the kinetic energy. Why wouldn't the energy be 6.25J instead. 6.25J is the total gravitational potentia; energy relative to the ground. So shouldn't all that energy be converted into kinetic energy?
The problem says "Calculate the total kinetic energy of the cylinder when it reaches the table".
 
ehild said:
The problem says "Calculate the total kinetic energy of the cylinder when it reaches the table".
I need help on part b not a
 
Does the angular velocity of the cylinder change after the cylinder leaves the table?
 
TSny said:
Does the angular velocity of the cylinder change after the cylinder leaves the table?
No, since there is no net external torque
 
Coderhk said:
No, since there is no net external torque
Right. Does that help to see why they used 2.5 J to get the answer for part b?
 
TSny said:
Right. Does that help to see why they used 2.5 J to get the answer for part b?
I see since the angular velocity at the table is the same as at the floor, we just calculate the angular velocity at the table. But why can't we attempt to find it at the floor directly by saying all the gravitational potential energy relative to the floor becomes kinetic energy?
 
All of the gravitational PE relative to the floor does become KE. But, that alone doesn't tell you what fraction of the KE at the floor will be rotational KE.
 
TSny said:
All of the gravitational PE relative to the floor does become KE. But, that alone doesn't tell you what fraction of the KE at the floor will be rotational KE.
Ahh, So does that mean that it wouldn't work because the transnational kinetic energy follows a trajectory rather than a straight line thus we can't say it is 0.5mv^2?
 
  • #10
Coderhk said:
Ahh, So does that mean that it wouldn't work because the transnational kinetic energy follows a trajectory rather than a straight line thus we can't say it is 0.5mv^2?
I don't think that's the crucial point. In the solution, they use KE = ##\frac{3}{4}##M(Rω)2. Under what condition is this true? Is this condition met once the cylinder leaves the table?
 
  • #11
TSny said:
I don't think that's the crucial point. In the solution, they use KE = ##\frac{3}{4}## M(Rω)2. Under what condition is this true? Is this condition met once the cylinder leaves the table?
That can only be achieved if they assume the ball is rolling without slipping which implies v=rw. Would it be that it is no longer true because the bottom of the ball is no longer not moving with respect to the ground?
 
  • #12
d
Coderhk said:
That can only be achieved if they assume the ball is rolling without slipping which implies v=rw.
Yes.
Would it be that it is no longer true because the bottom of the ball is no longer not moving with respect to the ground?
I think you have it. Once the cylinder leaves the table it is no longer rolling without slipping. v increases while ω remains constant. So, as you say, v ≠ Rω after the cylinder leaves the table.
 
  • Like
Likes Coderhk
  • #13
TSny said:
d Yes. I think you have it. Once the cylinder leaves the table it is no longer rolling without slipping. v increases while ω remains constant. So, as you say, v ≠ Rω after the cylinder leaves the table.
I see, thankyou very much. I get it now.
 
  • #14
OK. Good work.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
740
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
863
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K