How long to rotate *One* degree?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlecWins
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree Rotate
AI Thread Summary
To determine the time taken to rotate one degree at a speed of 11.2 rad/s, the conversion to degrees per second is necessary, resulting in 641.71 °/s. The correct calculation involves taking the reciprocal of this value to find the time in seconds per degree, which is 1/641.71. An alternative approach suggested is converting one degree to radians, simplifying the calculation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of maintaining unit consistency throughout the calculations. Ultimately, the solution clarifies that the time to rotate one degree is approximately 0.00156 seconds.
AlecWins
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Moved from technical forum, so no template
Hi,

Feels like a simple one but for reason I am stumped.

If I am rotating at 11.2 rad/s, how long will it take to rotate ONE single degree?

-
Converting 11.2 rad/s into °/s, I get 641.71 °/s. So, this is equivalent to 1.783 rev/s.
At this point, do I divide 1 revolution by how many degrees I travel per second i.e. 1/641.71?
Or
Do I divide by the number of revolutions per second i.e. 1.783/641.71?

What would be the solution to the time taken to rotate one single degree when rotating at 11.2 rad/s?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AlecWins said:
how long will it take to rotate ONE single degree?... I get 641.71 °/s.
Replace the number with simpler one, like 2 °/s, and think how you would compute the answer to your question then.
 
Always helpful to include the units in your math - the units are multiplied divided, and canceled the same as the numbers...or ion this case - write down the units you want to answer to be in, so you can see the necessary steps.

so you are asking how to get s/° (seconds (time) to move (per) One Degree) but you have °/s...
 
Windadct said:
so you are asking how to get s/° (seconds (time) to move (per) One Degree) but you have °/s...
Thanks for the clarification, so doing 1/641.71 would convert it to s/° which is what I am ultimately looking for. Makes sense now.
 
AlecWins said:
Hi,

Feels like a simple one but for reason I am stumped.

If I am rotating at 11.2 rad/s, how long will it take to rotate ONE single degree?

-
Converting 11.2 rad/s into °/s, I get 641.71 °/s. So, this is equivalent to 1.783 rev/s.
At this point, do I divide 1 revolution by how many degrees I travel per second i.e. 1/641.71?
Or
Do I divide by the number of revolutions per second i.e. 1.783/641.71?

What would be the solution to the time taken to rotate one single degree when rotating at 11.2 rad/s?

Thanks.

Wouldn't this be easier if you convert 1 degree into radian? You already know the "speed" is 11.2 rad/s. You now need to find the time it takes to "move" 1 radian.

If you are confused with this, try this equivalent situation. You are moving with speed of 11.2 m/s. How long does it take for you to move 1 m?

Zz.
 
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top