Independent translational momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the motion of a ruler on a frictionless surface after receiving a short impulse orthogonal to its long axis. It highlights that the translational velocity of the ruler is independent of the distance from the center of mass to the line of action of the impulse, while the angular velocity is dependent on that distance. The user struggles to reconcile this with the work-energy theorem, questioning how equal impulses can result in different energy distributions between translational and rotational motion. They propose that applying a force at a distance generates torque without reducing the translational impulse, which may explain the observed phenomena. The conversation also touches on the challenges of finding a practical example to demonstrate these principles.
nomism
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

I was watching an MIT OpenCourseWare video where the lecturer describes the problem of a rulers motion on a frictionless surface after being subjected to a 'short' impulse orthogonal to the long axis of the ruler.

(sorry as a new user I can't post images, youtube 'MIT torque lecture 21' for a problem description at 14:45 mins)

He goes on to show that the resulting translational velocity is independent of the distance between the centre of mass and the line of action of impulse
despite the fact that resulting angular velocity is dependent on that same distance.

The resultant translational direction seems obvious, but I have trouble reconciling the translational speed with the work energy theorem in the accompanying class notes (below) as I thought that equal impulses would input equal amounts of energy into the system

i.e. by my thinking rotational momentum would decrease and translational momentum would increase as the impulse is applied closer to the centre of mass

Please could someone explain this to me:smile:

W_{o,f}^{total} = \int_{o}^{f} \vec{F}_{ext}^{total}\cdot d\vec{r} + \int_{o}^{f} \vec{\tau }_{cm}^{total}\cdot d\vec{r}
<br /> = (\frac{1}{2}mV_{cm,f}^{2} + \frac{1}{2}I_{cm}\omega_{cm,f}^{2} )-<br /> (\frac{1}{2}mV_{cm,f}^{2} + \frac{1}{2}I_{cm}\omega_{cm,i}^{2} )<br />
= \Delta K_{trans} + \Delta K_{rot} = \Delta K_{total}<br />
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
if \tau is torque, the units don't match... I don't think that can be. What is \tau in this equation?
 
damnet that is tough
 
Thanks for the replies so far. The tau symbol is torque but I made a mistake in the second integral, it should have been with respect to the angle d theta. The units should match now.

I also forget to include the brackets to show that this is the z component of tau (i.e. the magnitude of the torque vector orthogonal to the centre of mass)

(sorry about not being able to post links but the set of notes the equation was taken from can be found by googling
'Module 27: Rigid Body Dynamics: Rotation and Translation about a Fixed Axis')

W_{o,f}^{total} = \int_{o}^{f} \vec{F}_{ext}^{total}\cdot d\vec{r} + \int_{o}^{f} (\vec{\tau }_{cm}^{total})_{z}<br /> <br /> \cdot d\theta
<br /> = (\frac{1}{2}mV_{cm,f}^{2} + \frac{1}{2}I_{cm}\omega_{cm,f}^{2} )-<br /> (\frac{1}{2}mV_{cm,f}^{2} + \frac{1}{2}I_{cm}\omega_{cm,i}^{2} )<br />
= \Delta K_{trans} + \Delta K_{rot} = \Delta K_{rot}<br />

Perhaps my problem is that the inputs are in fact different. I.e. a force at a distance also creates a torque and the creation of said torque does not reduce the force therefore the creation of an angular impulse does not affect the translational impulse. Does this sound reasonable to everyone?

I also can't think of an object that would impart a constant impulse kinetically. The closest I could think of is a hockey puck sliding across the surface and imparting it's kinetic energy to the ruler. However I can imagine that point of impacts distance from the centre of mass would have an effect on the pucks speed after the impact as well as the rulers.

Has anybody ever seen an experiment like this?
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
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?
For fun I was trying to use energy considerations to determine the depth to which a solid object will sink in a fluid to reach equilibrium. The first approach that I tried was just to consider the change in potential energy of the block and the fluid as the block is lowered some unknown distance d into the fluid similar to what is shown in the answer to this post. Upon taking the limit as the vessel's cross sectional area approaches infinity I have an extra factor of 2 in the equilibrium...
Back
Top