Gravitational potential energy of a cylinder to a particle

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the gravitational potential energy of a particle due to a cylinder with specified dimensions. The original poster presents an integral approach to determine the gravitational effect of the cylinder on the particle, raising questions about the setup and the variables involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the necessity of calculus in the problem, with some suggesting that simpler methods may suffice. Questions arise regarding the proper definition of variables, particularly the distance "y" in relation to the cylinder's dimensions and the particle's position.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the geometry of the problem and the implications of using different shapes in gravitational calculations. There is a recognition of the importance of accurately defining the coordinate system and measurements relevant to the problem.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the application of gravitational formulas for different shapes, and participants are encouraged to clarify their assumptions and coordinate systems. The original poster's integral approach is questioned, suggesting a need for further exploration of the problem setup.

Gian Lukmana
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone I'm kinda new here, your support will really be appreciated ! :D

1. Homework Statement

Let's say the cylinder has radius R, and height T.

Homework Equations


U = ∫GmdM/x

The Attempt at a Solution


My attempt is shown in the picture, I took a tiny element of the cylinder with vertical distance y, and horizontal distance r from the particle, then I used integral. am I doing this right ? I think there's something odd with the "y" there. Should I range the y until the upper surface of the cylinder only?
1902777_10205435664597512_708160216152778767_n.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why would you need calculus for this? The volume of a cylinder can be looked up so if you have the density of the material, you can get the mass of the cylinder and the center of mass is trivially easy to get so if you have the mass of the particle, just plug everything into the gravity formula. Am I missing something about what you are trying to do?
 
phinds said:
Why would you need calculus for this? The volume of a cylinder can be looked up so if you have the density of the material, you can get the mass of the cylinder and the center of mass is trivially easy to get so if you have the mass of the particle, just plug everything into the gravity formula. Am I missing something about what you are trying to do?
The gravitational force due to a cylinder is not the same as that due to a sphere or point mass of the same mass. Geometry matters.

One approach would be to begin by finding the force exerted by a thin disk at a given distance, then treat the cylinder as a stack of such disks of thickness dy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Thewindyfan
Yeah, I heard that we can't treat other shapes as a sphere, so we can't just blindly use the normal formula. To confirm, does this mean y should be the distance of the particle and the upper surface of the cylinder ?
 
Gian Lukmana said:
Yeah, I heard that we can't treat other shapes as a sphere, so we can't just blindly use the normal formula. To confirm, does this mean y should be the distance of the particle and the upper surface of the cylinder ?
I think it's up to you to specify your coordinate system and significant measurements, but it would probably make sense to characterize the setup by specifying distance of the test mass from the near end of the cylinder.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gian Lukmana
alright, got it now, thank you so much !
 
gneill said:
The gravitational force due to a cylinder is not the same as that due to a sphere or point mass of the same mass. Geometry matters.
OOPS. Guess I didn't think that one through.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K