How Much Work to Stand Up a Telephone Pole?

  • Thread starter Thread starter armis
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the work needed to reposition an 8m, 200kg telephone pole vertically from a horizontal position. Participants explore the concept of the center of mass, concluding that lifting the center of mass by 4 meters requires 8 kJ of work. There is debate over using torque versus gravitational potential energy for the solution, with torque being deemed more complex due to the need for considering inertia. The conversation also touches on the mathematical representation of torque and its relevance to the problem, emphasizing that the effective force acts at the center of mass for uniform mass distribution. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards using gravitational potential for a simpler solution.
armis
Messages
103
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


An 8m and 200kg telephone post is laying on the ground. What work one needs to do to reposition the post vertically?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


:cry:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Umm, a telephone-post maintenance worker's job?
Are you asking about the amount of work to be done?
 
Oh sorry, I meant work :rolleyes:
 
Okay any thoughts about how you want to go about solving this problem? To simplify, assume that the post's mass is uniformly distributed. Where is its centre of mass?
 
If the mass is uniformly distributed then the center of the mass is in the center. Thus I need to lift the center by half of the length of the pole A = mgl/2 = 8 kJ
thanks!

Now what about a numerical way to solve this? I was wondering about integrating somehow using the moment of force or something of the kind
 
What do you mean numerical method? You can find the centre of mass if required by integration, but other than that I don't see what else you should do.
 
Well if there would be a force acting on one end of the pole then I thought I could write and integral of some sorts and find out what work is done by the force to place the pole vertically
 
You can integrate - \tau d\theta, where \tau is the torque on the rod due to its weight.
 
Thanks dx

Any book which explains torgue in detail? I imagine all on classical mechanics must have an explanation, just tell me
 
  • #10
Why even bother with torque?

If you lift this log the 4 requisite meters and put in a magical frictionless bearing in the center, every orientation of the log has equal potential energy. So isn't the solution the gravitational potential of the center of mass at 4 meters?

Any solution involving torque would include the inertia of the pole about some hinge, which, although not unnecessarily complicated, is far more complicated than the gravitational potential formula.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
calef said:
Why even bother with torque?

If you lift this log the 4 requisite meters and put in a magical frictionless bearing in the center, every orientation of the log has equal potential energy. So isn't the solution the gravitational potential of the center of mass at 4 meters?

Any solution involving torque would include the inertia of the pole about some hinge, which, although not unnecessarily complicated, is far more complicated than the gravitational potential formula.
Yep, we actually already did that. Read the previous posts

I wanted to involve torgue that's why I asked how to do it

thanks
 
  • #12
armis said:
Thanks dx

Any book which explains torgue in detail? I imagine all on classical mechanics must have an explanation, just tell me

Torque is basically the rotational equivalent of force. For example, you know that the work done by a force F in moving an object a distance \Delta x is

F\Delta{x}.

Now consider some particle on the plane with a force (F_x, F_y) on it. It you now rotate the particle about the origin by and angle \Delta \theta, the work done on it can be shown to be

(xF_{y} - yF_{x})\Delta \theta.

So this strange combination xF_{y} - yF_{x} is the torque, which is also the vector cross product of (x,y) and
(F_x, F_y). This can also be written |r||F|sin\theta where \theta is the angle between
r and F.

In the case of your problem, the torque is - \frac{l}{2} mg cos\theta where \theta is the angle between the ground and the rod. If you integrate minus this from 0 to pi/2, you get the answer.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
dx said:
Now consider some particle on the plane with a force (F_x, F_y) on it. It you now rotate the particle about the origin by and angle \Delta \theta, the work done on it can be shown to be
(xF_{y} - yF_{x})\Delta \theta.

How can it shown to be (xF_{y} - yF_{x})\Delta \theta ?

dx said:
In the case of your problem, the torque is - \frac{l}{2} mg cos\theta where \theta is the angle between the ground and the rod. If you integrate minus this from 0 to pi/2, you get the answer.

why is it l/2 if the force is acting at the end of the pole?Is it because of the mass distribution?If it wouldn't be symmetric, then what?

thanks
 
  • #14
armis said:
How can it shown to be (xF_{y} - yF_{x})\Delta \theta ?
Displace the particle by a small angle \Delta \theta, and the find the small displacements in the x and y coordinates in terms of this. If these are \Delta x and \Delta y, then the work will be F_{x} \Delta{x} + F_{y} \Delta{y}.
armis said:
why is it l/2 if the force is acting at the end of the pole?Is it because of the mass distribution?If it wouldn't be symmetric, then what?

thanks

No, the force acts effectively at the center of mass, which is the middle of the rod if it is uniform.
 
Back
Top