Question makes no sense, but should be simple

  • Thread starter Thread starter SoulInNeed
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a hypothetical scenario involving a circular disk with a string and a hanging mass. Participants debate the effect on angular acceleration when the mass is replaced by an equivalent constant downward force without mass. Initial thoughts suggest that since the force remains constant, angular acceleration would not change, but others argue that removing the mass decreases inertia, potentially increasing angular acceleration. The conversation also touches on the relationship between torque, inertia, and angular acceleration, emphasizing that energy considerations differ between the two scenarios. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the idea that the change in inertia will affect the angular acceleration.
SoulInNeed
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
1. There is a circular disk with a string wrapped around its center. We attached a mass to the string, and the force caused it to rotate. Now, the hypothetical question is "The hanging mass m is exerting a constant downward force of magnitude mg on our system. What would happen to the angular acceleration of our system if the hanging mass were removed and replaced by a constant downward force of equal magnitude, but with no associated mass?"



Homework Equations

Net Torque=Ia
I=mr^2
sum of force=mg-T=ma



The Attempt at a Solution

My first instinct was to say that nothing would change because the force would stay the same, but now I think that the angular acceleration would increase, because the lack of any associated mass would cause the inertia to decrease. Any help guys?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd say your first instinct is right.

SoulInNeed said:

Homework Equations


sum of force=mg-T=ma

Remember, it is the sum of forces being considered. You don't consider the mass 'm' alone, you consider the weight 'mg'. So essentially, you are replacing the weight (a force) with a similar downward force with the same magnitude.
 
rock.freak667 said:
I'd say your first instinct is right.



Remember, it is the sum of forces being considered. You don't consider the mass 'm' alone, you consider the weight 'mg'. So essentially, you are replacing the weight (a force) with a similar downward force with the same magnitude.
That's what I was thinking, but that equation applies to translational acceleration, and this equation deals with angular acceleration. For that, we use the equation torque=Inertia*angular acceleration, right? Wouldn't the loss of a mass (even if its force remains) simply reduce inertia, and thus, increase angular acceleration?
 
SoulInNeed said:
That's what I was thinking, but that equation applies to translational acceleration, and this equation deals with angular acceleration. For that, we use the equation torque=Inertia*angular acceleration, right? Wouldn't the loss of a mass (even if its force remains) simply reduce inertia, and thus, increase angular acceleration?

Wouldn't it work out the same way if you take moments about the disk?

mgr-Tr= Iα
with I being the mass moment of inertia of the disk.
 
rock.freak667 said:
Wouldn't it work out the same way if you take moments about the disk?

mgr-Tr= Iα
with I being the mass moment of inertia of the disk.
Are you saying it would just even out on both sides of the equation?
 
Perhaps there is another way to consider the problem without the details of the disk. In one case energy goes into rotating the disk plus the kinetic energy of the mass. In the second case only the disk gains kinetic energy.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top