How Does the Velocity of a Falling Disc's Centre Change with Height h?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mooncrater
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rotation
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of two attached discs falling under the influence of gravity, specifically focusing on how the velocity of the center of the lower disc changes with height. The problem involves concepts from mechanics, including conservation of energy, torque, and the relationship between linear and angular velocities.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods to analyze the problem, including force and torque approaches as well as energy conservation. Questions arise regarding the validity of certain relationships, such as the connection between linear velocity and angular velocity, and the implications of non-slip conditions between the discs.

Discussion Status

Several participants have offered insights into the reasoning behind the methods used, with some questioning the assumptions made about the relationships between the velocities and angular velocities of the discs. There appears to be a productive exchange of ideas, with participants clarifying misunderstandings and refining their approaches without reaching a definitive consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly defining the reference frames when discussing the velocities and angular velocities of the discs, as well as the implications of the non-slip condition of the string on the discs' motion.

mooncrater
Messages
215
Reaction score
18
VCAE6f1f7D81CQXdeD78K8MK.jpg
7tLyTRUQULr2hKYeUCMMHWbL.jpg
question - Consider the cobination of two discs(attached) , then what will be the velocity of falling disc centre as a function of h. Both discs are identical and string doesn't slip relative to disc.

Relevant equations -
Conservation of energy .
Torque=r×F
Force=ma

An attempt to the question -
Attached
When I saw this question for the first time , I tried doing it with the force and torque method through which I got the acceleration and calculated the velocity of the lower disc.
But When I saw its solution, which was done by the conservation of energy , also seemed correct to me, but I didnt understand what was wrong with my method (duh).
So can someone please point out my mistake , I would be very thankful for that.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe you could state what the question was?
 
I believe your method has the correct answer. I'm not sure I follow why you defined ##\beta_{net} = \beta_1 +\beta_2##. There is nothing rotating at the rate ##\beta_{net}##. But it is true that the linear acceleration of the center of the lower disk is ##a = (\beta_1 +\beta_2)r##.

I think there is a mistake in the energy approach. ##v = \omega r## is not valid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater and Vatsal Sanjay
## v ## is not equal to ##rw## I think what you are missing here is the constraint relationship.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater and TSny
Mooncrater,
Note that even if the lower disk did not rotate, the center of the lower disk would have a velocity due to the rotation of the upper disk. So, ##v## for the lower disk depends on both the rotation of the upper disk as well as the rotation of the lower disk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater
TSny said:
Note that even if the lower disk did not rotate, the center of the lower disk would have a velocity due to the rotation of the upper disk. So, vv for the lower disk depends on both the rotation of the upper disk as well as the rotation of the lower disk.
I meant exactly the same. Right? (*sorry but I could not get if anything is wrong about my statement)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater
Vatsal Sanjay said:
I meant exactly the same. Right? (*sorry but I could not get if anything is wrong about my statement)
Yes, you are right. We are in agreement. :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater and Vatsal Sanjay
TSny said:
I think there is a mistake in the energy approach. ##v = \omega r## is not valid.
But the thread doesn't SLIP over the lower disc so how is υ=rω not valid here ?Is it due to the fact that the velocity of the lower disc is not only dependent on the angular velocity of the lower disc but also of the upper disc ( as u said )?But then what will be relation between v and w (omega)?
 
Last edited:
mooncrater said:
But the thread doesn't SLIP over the lower disc so how is υ=rω not valid here ?
Yes. Exactly. The thread doesn't slip over the disc. However the speed of thread is not zero. if ## v ## is the velocity of center of mass and ## \omega_2 ##, the angular velocity of lower disc. Then the velocity of point on disc in contact with the thread will be ## v - r\omega_2 ## (downwards). For non slip condition this quantity must be equal to the velocity of the thread at the point of contact. Had that been zero, then your relation was correct. I guess I am not supposed to write the entire expression. So I will leave it up to you to figure out what the relation is. :)
 
  • #10
So then the relation should be:
ν22r=ω1r
Am I correct?
Where ω1 is the angular velocity of the upper disc..
Edit :sorry instead of ω2 it was ω1
 
Last edited:
  • #11
mooncrater said:
ν2-ω2r=ω1r
mooncrater said:
Where ω2 is the angular velocity of the upper disc..
It is correct considering that you have written it in the frame of reference of the centre of mass of the lower disc,
If the above equation is written in the ground (inertial) frame of reference, then you have interchanged ## \omega_1 ## and ## \omega_2 ## .
See the relation is same in both the cases but writing the above equation in ground frame is technically incorrect. (Mathematical manipulations apart)

I hope I am clear with my point?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater
  • #12
Is it correct after I edited it?
 
  • #13
Yes.. Its correct now!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mooncrater
  • #14
Thank you...now its clear to me...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
7K
Replies
30
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K