Kinetic energy from c.o.m frame

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the kinetic energy of a system in different reference frames, particularly when using a center of mass (c.m) frame that rotates about a point in a previous frame. It is noted that the straightforward application of kinetic energy equations does not yield the same results in rotating frames, leading to more complex calculations. The participants derive effective kinetic energy expressions that account for the angular velocity of the rotating frame and its impact on particle velocities. The final equations suggest a relationship between total kinetic energy, effective kinetic energy, and angular momentum. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of deriving closed formulas in non-inertial frames.
pardesi
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
we know
kinetic energy of a system from a certain frame of refrence is the sum of kinetic energy in the c.m framee of refrence that moves translationally to the previous frame and the kinetic energy of c.m from that frame.

but what if the i choose the frame attached to the c.m such that it rotaes about a point in the previous frame is there a closed formulae for that
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you know how to prove the first statement you made? (and which you btw. didn't say very clearly)

I'm not sure what kind of answer you are seeking, but at least precisely the same result doesn't work with rotating frames . You can verify this by trying to prove it, and you'll see that the calculations give something more complicated.
 
yes soory for the non clarity(was too bored to write in latex...)
well i tried doing the same way as first but ended up in a much complex formulae...is there any known result
 
I'm not sure about well known results, but it is not difficult to calculate something about this. If we, for simplicity, assume that the center of mass is not moving, then velocities of the particles in rotating frame are

<br /> \dot{x}_k-\omega\times x_k<br />

still written with the inertial frame vectors. Omega is the angular velocity of the rotating frame. If correct kinetic energies are

<br /> E_k = \frac{1}{2}m_k |\dot{x}_k|^2<br />

and if we define some kind of effective kinetic energies

<br /> E_{k,eff} = \frac{1}{2}m_k |\dot{x}_k- \omega\times x_k|^2<br />

then, assuming I calculated this correctly, we have

<br /> E_{k,eff} = E_k + \frac{1}{2}m_k |\omega\times x_k|^2 - \omega\cdot L_k<br />

where L is the angular momentum of the particle. Then

<br /> E = \sum_{k=1}^N E_k = E_{eff} - \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^N m_k |\omega\times x_k|^2 + \omega\cdot L<br />

I'm not sure. I was bored, and looking for something small to do. Check the result yourself if you want to know if it's correct.

What ever you were looking for, I believe that the result will involve equations that look something like that.
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top