Maximum angular velocity so that there is no stick

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a concrete mixer drum and seeks to determine the maximum angular velocity at which the ingredients do not stick to the drum's wall. The context is rooted in dynamics, specifically applying Newton's laws in a rotating system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conditions under which the ingredients stick to the wall, focusing on the forces acting at the top of the drum's rotation. There are attempts to derive the maximum angular velocity using polar coordinates and Newton's second law. Questions arise regarding the definitions of forces and the implications of coordinate systems.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring the implications of their equations and questioning the definitions of forces involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the sign conventions in their equations, and there is a recognition of the need to clarify the role of radial acceleration.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that the radius of the drum is constant, and there is a focus on the forces acting on a particle at the top of the rotation. The discussion includes considerations of how to properly apply Newton's second law in this context.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


We have a concrete mixer, and if the drum spins too fast, the ingredients will stick to the wall of the drum rather than mix. Assume that the drum of the mixer has radius R = 0.5 m and that it is mounted with its axle horizontal. What is the fastest the drum can rotate without the ingredients sticking to the wall all of the time?

Homework Equations


Newton's 2nd law

The Attempt at a Solution



So I believe that I have solved this problem. We define that the ingredients stick to the wall when, at the very top of the motion, there is some normal force pushing the ingredients toward the center. Thus to find the maximum angular velocity, we just need to find the angular velocity at which there is only gravity acting at the top and no normal force.
Also, we are working in polar coordinates, so we define our reference frame such that towards the center of rotation is positive, and outward is negative.

Thus, (imagine that our analysis is on a single particle, at the very top of the rotation)
##F_g = m a_{radial}##
##mg = m (\ddot{r} - r \dot{\theta^2}_{max})##
##g = -r \dot{\theta^2}_{max}##
##\displaystyle \dot{\theta}_{max} = \sqrt{-\frac{g}{r}}##

This is the correct equation (I think), except there is a negative. Why is there a negative? Did I define my coordinate system wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:

Homework Statement


We have a concrete mixer, and if the drum spins too fast, the ingredients will stick to the wall of the drum rather than mix. Assume that the drum of the mixer has radius R = 0.5 m and that it is mounted with its axle horizontal. What is the fastest the drum can rotate without the ingredients sticking to the wall all of the time?

Homework Equations


Newton's 2nd law

The Attempt at a Solution



So I believe that I have solved this problem. We define that the ingredients stick to the wall when, at the very top of the motion, there is some normal force pushing the ingredients toward the center. Thus to find the maximum angular velocity, we just need to find the angular velocity at which there is only gravity acting at the top and no normal force.
Also, we are working in polar coordinates, so we define our reference frame such that towards the center of rotation is positive, and outward is negative.

Thus, (imagine that our analysis is on a single particle, at the very top of the rotation)
##F_g = m a_{radial}##
##mg = m (\ddot{r} - r \dot{\theta^2}_{max})##
##g = -r \dot{\theta^2}_{max}##
##\displaystyle \dot{\theta}_{max} = \sqrt{-\frac{g}{r}}##

This is the correct equation (I think), except there is a negative. Why is there a negative? Did I define my coordinate system wrong?
You mention the normal force, but there is no normal in your equations. Yes, the normal force must be zero at some point, but your solution implies that ## m\ddot{r} ## is the normal force because that's what you set to zero. What is ## m \ddot{r} ## according to Newton?
 
kuruman said:
You mention the normal force, but there is no normal in your equations. Yes, the normal force must be zero at some point, but your solution implies that ## m\ddot{r} ## is the normal force because that's what you set to zero. What is ## m \ddot{r} ## according to Newton?
Well, ##r## is not changing, so I thought that ##\ddot{r} = 0##. Also, at the very top, gravity would be the only force acting on the particle, so I still don't see what I am doing wrong
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
Well, ##r## is not changing, so I thought that ##\ddot{r} = 0##. Also, at the very top, gravity would be the only force acting on the particle, so I still don't see what I am doing wrong
Please answer my question first, what does ## m\ddot{r} ## represent? Answering this will clarify the way you think about this problem.
Hint: What does Newton's Second law say? Also, consider this: does the fact that r is not changing necessarily mean that ## \vec{r} ## is not changing?
 
Is ##m \ddot{r}## the normal force, since ##\ddot{r}## is the acceleration of the radius vector from the center, which is constant in magnitude but not in direction?
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
Is ##m \ddot{r}## the normal force, since ##\ddot{r}## is the acceleration of the radius vector from the center, which is constant in magnitude but not in direction?
No. More correctly, ## m \ddot{ \vec{r}} ## (mass times the acceleration vector) is ... ? Newton's Second law?
 
kuruman said:
No. More correctly, ## m \ddot{ \vec{r}} ## (mass times the acceleration vector) is ... ? Newton's Second law?

##\ddot{r}## is the acceleration due to a change in radial speed. So ##m \ddot{r}## would be the force that causes a change in radial speed...
 
Sorry to bump, but I really need some help with this. I'm so close to the answer, I just need some pointers.
 
Mr Davis 97 said:
Sorry to bump, but I really need some help with this. I'm so close to the answer, I just need some pointers.
You have the right equation. Karuman is on the wrong track. The stated concern is the sign error resulting from:

##mg = m (\ddot{r} - r \dot{\theta^2}_{max})##

In that equation, you are equating ##mg##, the downward force of gravity on the object, with ##(\ddot{r} - r \dot{\theta^2}_{max})## the radial acceleration of an object described using polar coordinates and a convention that out = positive.

At the top of the path, do your sign conventions (down=positive and out=positive) line up properly?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97 and BvU
  • #10
jbriggs444 said:
You have the right equation. Karuman is on the wrong track. The stated concern is the sign error resulting from:

##mg = m (\ddot{r} - r \dot{\theta^2}_{max})##

In that equation, you are equating ##mg##, the downward force of gravity on the object, with ##(\ddot{r} - r \dot{\theta^2}_{max})## the radial acceleration of an object described using polar coordinates and a convention that out = positive.

At the top of the path, do your sign conventions (down=positive and out=positive) line up properly?
Ah ha! That fixes everything. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
335
Views
17K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K