Is it possible for a vertical rod balancing on a table to lose contact by striking the top of the rod?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rob2024
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion confirms that it is indeed possible for a vertical rod balancing on a table to lose contact with the surface under specific conditions. The analysis highlights that while the center of mass (CM) experiences a downward acceleration of g, the top end of the rod can have an additional downward acceleration, leading to a scenario where the bottom end may lose contact. The rigidity of the rod imposes constraints on the velocities but not on the accelerations, allowing for the possibility of the lower mass losing contact with the table, particularly in a frictionless environment.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rigid body dynamics
  • Familiarity with centripetal acceleration concepts
  • Knowledge of the principles of motion in frictionless environments
  • Basic grasp of acceleration and velocity relationships
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of rigid body dynamics in detail
  • Learn about centripetal acceleration and its applications
  • Explore the effects of frictionless surfaces on motion
  • Investigate the mathematical modeling of rigid bodies in motion
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of rigid bodies and motion analysis.

Rob2024
Messages
39
Reaction score
6
Homework Statement
An upright rod of length ##l## with negligible mass is initially at rest on a frictionless horizontal table. Two identical masses are attached to the top and the bottom of the rod. When the top of the rod is given a large horizontal velocity ##v_0##, the bottom can lose contact with the table at the same moment.What's the minimum speed ##v_0## that allows this to happen?
Relevant Equations
$$F = ma$$
The question I have is that if this is even possible?

Assume it's possible, the CM acceleration is ##g## downward. Then the top end of the rod has an additional downward acceleration ##a_c## while the bottom end of the rod has an upward acceleration ##a_c##. This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid. It suggests it's not possible for the system to lose contact with the table.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rob2024 said:
Assume it's possible, the CM acceleration is ##g## downward. Then the top end of the rod has an additional downward acceleration ##a_c## while the bottom end of the rod has an upward acceleration ##a_c##. This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid. It suggests it's not possible for the system to lose contact with the table.
If a rod spins about its midpoint, each end is accelerating towards the centre.
 
Rob2024 said:
Assume it's possible, the CM acceleration is ##g## downward. Then the top end of the rod has an additional downward acceleration ##a_c## while the bottom end of the rod has an upward acceleration ##a_c##. This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude...
Yes

Rob2024 said:
...which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid.
Rigidity imposes a condition on the velocities of two points of the rod, not the accelerations.
 
Rob2024 said:
This will make the two ends of the rod having different acceleration in magnitude which contradicts with the given the rod is rigid.
I just tossed a pen in the air, giving it an end over end spin. The laws of physics did not prevent it.
 
I get it now. My assumption about acceleration was incorrect.
 
I would assume that the bottom of the rod can slide along a horizontal line without friction. Then I would answer the problem's question by considering a reaction of this ideal constraint.
 
wrobel said:
I would assume that the bottom of the rod can slide along a horizontal line without friction. Then I would answer the problem's question by considering a reaction of this ideal constraint.
It is stated as frictionless, but it makes no difference anyway.
 
That's a pretty little problem. Yes, it is possible for the lower mass to lose contact with the table. The motion right after that is a lot more complicated to work out. But recall your formula for centripetal acceleration. And note that at the t=0 moment you have a lot of really cool simplification to your angles and velocities and such. And that the force a rigid massless rod applies has to be parallel to the rod.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K