How Does Angular Momentum Affect Ice Skating Techniques?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DiracPool
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ice Mechanics
AI Thread Summary
Angular momentum in ice skating is influenced by the moment of inertia and angular velocity, with the formula L = Iω being central to understanding this relationship. The discussion explores calculations involving angular momentum, including scenarios where a skater adjusts their radius by moving their arms, affecting their rotation rate. The calculations presented suggest that if a skater weighing 100 kg spins at 1 cycle per second with arms extended, their angular momentum would be approximately 628.32 joule-seconds. As the skater brings their arms in, the rotation rate increases, demonstrating the conservation of angular momentum. Additionally, the moment of inertia for a point mass is discussed, emphasizing the need for integration when considering the mass distribution of larger objects like a bowling ball.
DiracPool
Messages
1,242
Reaction score
515
Hello, I'm trying to bone up on my conservation of angular momentum skills as well as my ice skating skills so I can be like my hero, Michio Kaku.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyYMbQFYGPU

Unfortunately my ice skating skills are better than my physics skills, so I thought y'all might be able to help. Here's the question, if angular momentum, L, equals the moment of inertia of a body, I, multiplied by its angular velocity, ω, then does L=mr^2(2πf)?

Now, if that's true, then does r=\sqrt{L/m2πf}?

And, accordingly, f=L/m2πr^2?

I just attempted to derive these myself so I don't know if I'm missing something here.

Plugging in some values, then, if I weighed 100 kg and started spinning at 1 cycle per second with my arms extended at a 1 meter radius, then would my angular momentum be 628.32 joule-seconds?

Now say we were to conserve this figure as I varied my "moment" during my spin by moving my arms inward and outward of my torso. Say I brought my arms in so that my radius was .5 meters instead of 1 meter. Would my rotation rate then be 4 cycles per second?

Finally, if I decided I wanted to rotate at a comfortable 2 cycles per second, would I need to move my arms to a position whereby my radius was 0.7 meters?

Am I calculating these figures correctly? Thanks for your help. Also, I do have one follow up question once I get all of this checked out.
 

Attachments

  • michio_kaku.jpg
    michio_kaku.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 518
Physics news on Phys.org
The moment of inertia is mr^2 for a point mass, but in general you have to integrate over the entire volume of the body. (divide body in small parts, sum mr^2 for these parts)
It would be easier to put someone on a turntable and try to measure the angular momentum for different positions.
 
willem2 said:
The moment of inertia is mr^2 for a point mass, but in general you have to integrate over the entire volume of the body. (divide body in small parts, sum mr^2 for these parts)
It would be easier to put someone on a turntable and try to measure the angular momentum for different positions.

Would a perfectly homogenous sphere, mass distribution-wise, like a perfectly homogenous bowling ball, qualify as such a point mass?
 
The point being made is that a point-like mass not located at the defined axis of rotation has a moment of inertia given by mr2 where r is its distance from the axis of rotation.

If you like, think of it as a point-like mass mounted on a massless rod that is attached to a freely spinning massless axle.

If you inflate that point-like mass to a bowling ball you have to consider not only the moment of inertia due to the distance of the center of mass from the axle but also the moment of inertia due to the distance of the distributed mass from its own center line. The total angular momentum would be mr2 + 2/5mR2 where R is the radius of the bowling ball and r is the distance of the center of the bowling ball from the axle.
 
Last edited:
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?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top