Is there no translational energy?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving a uniform rod of length b and mass m that tips over from a vertical position. Participants are exploring the relationship between potential energy and kinetic energy during this motion, particularly focusing on the translational and rotational components of energy as the rod falls.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the energy equation, questioning the treatment of translational energy as zero during the tipping motion. There is exploration of the implications of the center of mass's motion and the relationship between translational and rotational velocities.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided clarifications regarding the definitions of variables in the energy equation and the moment of inertia, suggesting a reconsideration of the initial assumptions about energy distribution. There is an ongoing exploration of how the parallel axis theorem applies to the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the implications of a rough floor preventing slipping and the resulting motion of the center of mass. There are also inquiries about specific coefficients in the derivation of moment of inertia, indicating a need for deeper understanding of rotational dynamics.

TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement



A uniform rod of length b and mass m stands vertically upright on a floor and then tips over.
a) Assuming that the floor is rough (i.e., the end of the rod that is initially touching the floor cannot slip), what is the rod’s angular velocity when it hits the floor?

2. Homework Equations


$$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2 $$

The Attempt at a Solution



I have found the solution, but only by setting $$ U_i = T_f $$ (initial potential energy = final kinetic energy). But what I found odd is that I set $$ T_f = \frac{1}{2}I\omega_f^2 $$ and stated the translational energy term goes to 0. I got the right answer by doing this, but it doesn't seem right. I understand that the CoM of the rod remains at the same length radially, but since there is an x- and y-component to its velocity, shouldn't it have a non-zero final translational velocity? Although this is reminiscent almost of a ball kept stationary but rotated, which has only rotational energy, and zero net translational energy (at its CoM)...but are these two cases really analogous? In one case it seems very clear that the CoM is moving, while in the other, the CoM is stationary from a fixed axis.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheCanadian said:

Homework Equations


$$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2 $$

To help answer your question, think about the meaning of the above equation. In particular, the speed ##v## in the equation refers to the speed of what point? The symbol ##I## refers to the moment of inertia about what axis?
 
TSny said:
To help answer your question, think about the meaning of the above equation. In particular, the speed ##v## in the equation refers to the speed of what point? The symbol ##I## refers to the moment of inertia about what axis?

## v ## would refer to the CoM, or ## \frac {b}{2}sin\theta## if ##\theta## is the angle the rod makes with the horizontal, right? And ## I ## represent the inertia about the rotation axis (i.e. parallel to the rod itself), point in the radial direction. Is it wrong to think of this as non-uniform circular motion, so that there's only a tangential velocity equivalent ##b\omega##? Is it because there is only a tangential velocity that we consider the velocity of the CoM to be 0?
 
Yes, ##v## is the speed of the center of mass when using the equation ## T = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2 ##. However, ##I## in this equation is the moment of inertia about an axis through the center of mass, not the moment of inertia about the end of the rod. So, it might be clearer to write the equation as $$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv_c^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_c\omega^2 $$

If you are familiar with the parallel axis theorem, you can relate ##I_{end}## about one end of the rod to ##I_c## about the center of mass. Then you can show that $$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv_c^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_c\omega^2 = \frac{1}{2}I_{end}\omega^2$$
 
TSny said:
Yes, ##v## is the speed of the center of mass when using the equation ## T = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2 ##. However, ##I## in this equation is the moment of inertia about an axis through the center of mass, not the moment of inertia about the end of the rod. So, it might be clearer to write the equation as $$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv_c^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_c\omega^2 $$

If you are familiar with the parallel axis theorem, you can relate ##I_{end}## about one end of the rod to ##I_c## about the center of mass. Then you can show that $$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv_c^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_c\omega^2 = \frac{1}{2}I_{end}\omega^2$$

Wow, I was looking at it very wrong. Thank you!
 
TSny said:
Yes, ##v## is the speed of the center of mass when using the equation ## T = \frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\omega^2 ##. However, ##I## in this equation is the moment of inertia about an axis through the center of mass, not the moment of inertia about the end of the rod. So, it might be clearer to write the equation as $$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv_c^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_c\omega^2 $$

If you are familiar with the parallel axis theorem, you can relate ##I_{end}## about one end of the rod to ##I_c## about the center of mass. Then you can show that $$ T = \frac{1}{2} mv_c^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_c\omega^2 = \frac{1}{2}I_{end}\omega^2$$

I also just had a small related question. I was just wondering why in this image, the derivation for I begins with stating ## dI = \frac{1}{2} y^2dm ##. Where exactly does this 1/2 coefficient come from? Shouldn't it just be ## dI = y^2dm ##?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 11.14.52 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 11.14.52 PM.png
    6.3 KB · Views: 466
TheCanadian said:
I also just had a small related question. I was just wondering why in this image, the derivation for I begins with stating ## dI = \frac{1}{2} y^2dm ##. Where exactly does this 1/2 coefficient come from? Shouldn't it just be ## dI = y^2dm ##?
Here, ## dI = \frac{1}{2} y^2dm ## is the rotational inertia of a thin disk of radius ##y## and mass ##dm##, as shown in the figure. So, the 1/2 factor is correct here. If ##dm## were the mass of a particle (rather than a disk), then ## dI ## would equal ##r^2dm ##, where ##r## is the distance from the point mass to the axis of rotation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
55
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K