Is Rotational Kinetic Energy Needed for a Bead on a Helix?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the kinetic energy of a bead moving along a helical path, specifically addressing whether rotational kinetic energy should be included in the analysis. The subject area is classical mechanics, focusing on concepts of kinetic energy and motion in three dimensions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to differentiate between translational and rotational kinetic energy in the context of a bead on a helix, questioning the necessity of including rotational kinetic energy in their calculations.
  • Some participants suggest that the original poster may be double counting kinetic energy associated with motion in the x-y plane.
  • Others explore the implications of an object's shape on the kinetic energy calculations, particularly when considering finite-sized objects versus point masses.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's concerns, providing insights into the nature of kinetic energy for different types of motion. There is a recognition of the complexities involved in distinguishing between translational and rotational kinetic energy, with some guidance offered on how to approach the problem conceptually.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of assumptions regarding the shape of the bead and its motion, as well as the definitions of kinetic energy in different contexts. The original poster references multiple sources that do not include rotational kinetic energy, raising questions about the completeness of their understanding.

Phylosopher
Messages
139
Reaction score
26

Homework Statement



Screenshot_from_2018_06_25_09_26_21.png

Homework Equations



$$\mathcal{L}=T-U$$
$$\omega= \frac{d\phi}{dt}$$
$$I=mr^{2}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


My problem is not finding the Lagrangian. But finding the kinetic energy! The translational kinetic energy would obviously be the following:

$$K.E t=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^{2}+\dot{y}^{2}+\dot{z}^{2})=\frac{1}{2}m(1+(\frac{R}{\lambda})^{2}) \dot{z}^{2}$$

But as far as I understood, there is rotational kinetic energy as well, namely the following

$$K.E r= \frac{1}{2}I \omega^{2} = \frac{1}{2}mR^{2} \frac{\dot{z}^2}{\lambda^2}$$

The helix is just the trajectory of the particle. If you look at the helix from above you see a circle. Furthermore, the angle depend on ##z##, which I believe support my idea.

I usually prefer looking at the solutions. Especially when I self study. I looked at two different sources from two different universities, none include rotational kinetic energy! Am I wrong?

Source 1
Source 2

Footnote: Classical Mechanics, By Taylor. Problem 7.20
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_from_2018_06_25_09_26_21.png
    Screenshot_from_2018_06_25_09_26_21.png
    22.7 KB · Views: 1,120
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Phy,

Straight answer is yes. You are double counting the motion in the x-y plane. ##{1\over 2}I\omega^2## is the kinetic energy of a point mass moving in a circle.
If the bead would be of finite size, there would be an extra kinetic energy term from rotation of the bead around its ##z##-axis.
 
BvU said:
Hi Phy,

Straight answer is yes. You are double counting the motion in the x-y plane. ##{1\over 2}I\omega^2## is the kinetic energy of a point mass moving in a circle.
If the bead would be of finite size, there would be an extra kinetic energy term from rotation of the bead around its ##z##-axis.

So, unless an object has a shape, translational kinetic energy is enough to describe kinetic energy as whole.
Once an object has a shape, and its changing direction in general (in a plane or volume/or rotating around an axis), translational kinetic energy is not enough.

What I stated is correct?
 
Check out how the expression ##{1\over 2} I \omega^2## is derived in a suitable textbook: it is simply the integral of the kinetic energies of the constituents of an extended body.
What you state is correct -- I think. If it helps understanding seems a bit doubtful to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Phylosopher
Phylosopher said:
Once an object has a shape, and its changing direction in general (in a plane or volume/or rotating around an axis), translational kinetic energy is not enough.

What I stated is correct?
You have the right idea, but the distinction you're making between rotational and translational is not so clearcut.

Consider a point mass ##m## rotating about a point at a distance ##r## with angular speed ##\omega##. On the one hand, you could say the speed of the mass is ##v = \omega r##, so its translational kinetic energy is ##\frac 12 m (\omega r)^2##. On the other hand, you could say it has a rotational kinetic energy ##\frac 12 I\omega^2## where ##I = mr^2##. Either way, you get the same result for the kinetic energy. It depends on the way you want to look at the system.

Now consider a uniform rod of mass ##m## and length ##L## rotating with angular speed ##\omega## about an axis that passes through the end of the rod and is perpendicular to the rod. The moment of inertia of the rod about this axis is ##I = \frac 13 mL^2##, and its kinetic energy is
$$K = \frac 12 I \omega^2 = \frac 16 mL^2\omega^2.$$ We could also express its kinetic energy in terms of the motion of the center of mass and rotation about the center of mass. The center of mass of the rod moves with speed ##v_\text{cm} = \omega L/2##, and the moment of inertia about the center of mass is ##I_\text{cm} = \frac{1}{12}mL^2##. So the kinetic energy of the rod is
$$K = \frac 12 I_\text{cm} \omega^2 + \frac 12 m v_\text{cm}^2 = \frac 12\left(\frac {1}{12}mL^2\right)\omega^2 + \frac 12 m \left(\frac{\omega L}{2}\right)^2 = \frac 16 mL^2 \omega^2.$$ Finally, we could calculate the translational kinetic energy of each piece of the rod and integrate:
$$dK = \frac 12 v^2\,dm = \frac 12 v^2 \lambda\,dr \quad \Rightarrow \quad K = \frac 12 \int_0^L (\omega r)^2\ \lambda\,dr = \frac 16 mL^2 \omega^2,$$ where ##\lambda = m/L##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Phylosopher

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K