How Is v=rω Derived in the Context of Rotational Motion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter slimnexus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Figure
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the equation v = rω in the context of rotational motion, specifically relating to rolling objects and their kinetic energy. Participants reference a textbook that discusses rolling kinetic energy and its components, aiming to clarify the relationship between linear speed and angular velocity.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore how to derive v = rω from the equation for rolling kinetic energy, questioning the steps involved in the derivation. Some suggest using the relationship between distance traveled in one rotation and the period of rotation to connect linear and angular quantities.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the derivation process, with some participants providing alternative methods to arrive at the relationship. While some clarity has been achieved regarding the connection between distance and angular velocity, there remains a lack of consensus on the original equation's simplification.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the textbook does not provide intermediate steps, which contributes to the confusion. There is also mention of the need to understand the relationship between circumference and the time taken for one complete rotation.

slimnexus
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Question comes from this book http://www.anselm.edu/internet/physics/cbphysics/index.html

In the section on rotational energy it gives the formula K[itex]_{rolling}[/itex] = K[itex]_{translational}[/itex]+K[itex]_{rotational}[/itex] which it then expands to K[itex]_{rolling}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex]mv[itex]^{2}[/itex] + [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex]Iω[itex]^{2}[/itex]. Then it states that when an object that is rolling without slipping completes one rotation it travels a distance equal to its circumference so far so good. But then it says to divide both sides of the equation by 2πr, and on the left side we should have the speed of the object and on the right side its angular velocity. So I should end up with v = rω. But the author doesn't show any intermediate steps and I am not following this, I don't want to move on until I understand what's going on here.

So my question is how is v = rω derived from the earlier stated equation. Intermediate steps would be much appreciated. Thanks for any help you can provide.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
slimnexus said:

Homework Statement


Question comes from this book http://www.anselm.edu/internet/physics/cbphysics/index.html

In the section on rotational energy it gives the formula K[itex]_{rolling}[/itex] = K[itex]_{translational}[/itex]+K[itex]_{rotational}[/itex] which it then expands to K[itex]_{rolling}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex]mv[itex]^{2}[/itex] + [itex]\frac{1}{2}[/itex]Iω[itex]^{2}[/itex]. Then it states that when an object that is rolling without slipping completes one rotation it travels a distance equal to its circumference so far so good. But then it says to divide both sides of the equation by 2πr, and on the left side we should have the speed of the object and on the right side its angular velocity. So I should end up with v = rω. But the author doesn't show any intermediate steps and I am not following this, I don't want to move on until I understand what's going on here.

So my question is how is v = rω derived from the earlier stated equation. Intermediate steps would be much appreciated. Thanks for any help you can provide.

I'm not sure what the stated equation is supposed to be, but here's one way to arrive at where you want to go:

Suppose that the period for one revolution is T, so that in time T the distance traveled is one circumference. Thus:

##d = 2\pi\;r## and dividing both sides by T gives ##\frac{d}{T} = \frac{2\pi}{T}r##

On the left we see d/T which is the speed. On the right, we see ##2\pi/T## which is just ω in disguise...
 
gneill said:
I'm not sure what the stated equation is supposed to be, but here's one way to arrive at where you want to go:

Suppose that the period for one revolution is T, so that in time T the distance traveled is one circumference. Thus:

##d = 2\pi\;r## and dividing both sides by T gives ##\frac{d}{T} = \frac{2\pi}{T}r##

On the left we see d/T which is the speed. On the right, we see ##2\pi/T## which is just ω in disguise...

In the equations in my original post K is kinetic energy. So in words "Rolling kinetic energy is equal to translational kinetic energy plus rotational kinetic energy".

I can understand the method you just showed, that works out pretty simple. But I still don't see how the equations in the original post can be simplified to the same thing. Maybe someone could look at the book (it's free), it might make more sense than the way I worded it here.

Thanks for the help!
 
From the textbook:

Distance traveled in one rotation = 2π r

Now if we divide both sides of this equation by the amount of time that it takes for the object to complete one rotation we obtain on the left, the speed of the object and, on the right, we can interpret the 2π as 2π radians and, since 2π radians is one rotation the 2π radians divided by the time it takes for the object to complete one rotation is just the magnitude of the angular velocity ω. Hence we arrive at

v =ωr

I took a look at the textbook and IMO he's now referring to another separate formula, c = πd or in his form, c = 2πr, where c is the circumference of the circle. The is means that c is the distance the wheel will travel in one rotation.
 
rollcast said:
From the textbook:
I took a look at the textbook and IMO he's now referring to another separate formula, c = πd or in his form, c = 2πr, where c is the circumference of the circle. The is means that c is the distance the wheel will travel in one rotation.

I think I get it now. He's now referring to the formula distance = 2πr when he talks about dividing by time. Thanks a lot! Now that I understand that I will be able to continue.
 

Similar threads

Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K