Is rotational Work the same as linear Work?

AI Thread Summary
Linear work, defined as F*D, and rotational work, expressed as 1/2Iω², can be equated under certain conditions. If linear work is known, it can be set equal to rotational work in specific scenarios. However, to find angular momentum, additional information such as radius or angular speed is necessary; work and force alone are insufficient. The discussion emphasizes the need for clarity in questions regarding these concepts. Understanding the relationship between linear and rotational work is crucial in physics.
Just_enough
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Linear work is F*D and rotation is 1/2Iω2, but if a problem as me rotational energy (Rotation worl = KE?) of a wheel and I have the linear work, can I just set Wrotation=Wlinear?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please correct the errors in your post, your question is not understandable as written.
 
marcusl said:
Please correct the errors in your post, your question is not understandable as written.
If I have Work1=F*D, can I use that answer to be equal to W2(=1/2Iω2)?
 
Linear and rotational work can be equated, yes.
 
  • Like
Likes Just_enough
russ_watters said:
Linear and rotational work can be equated, yes.
Thanks. Now is it possible to find angular momentum from just work and force? no radius, speed, nor mass are given. If so, how?
 
Just_enough said:
Thanks. Now is it possible to find angular momentum from just work and force? no radius, speed, nor mass are given.
No, you need at least radius or angular speed.
 
  • Like
Likes Just_enough

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Why does a free rigid body rotate only about its COM when F(ext) is applied?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Rotational Work versus Linear Work
Replies
14
Views
2K
B The physics of flywheel launchers (like tennis ball shooters)
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
I Satellite mechanics: linear and rotational momentum
Replies
19
Views
2K
I Velocity transformation between frames rotating relative to one another
Replies
1
Views
2K
Energy of translation compared to the energy of rotation
Replies
28
Views
3K
B Move in Space without mass exchange
Replies
4
Views
1K
Does an impulse contribute to both linear and angular momentum?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Question about a Rotating system with mass moving inwards
Replies
19
Views
2K
B Impulse and distance from the axis of rotation
Replies
9
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top