Maximum speed of smaller mass in trebuchet with stiff rod and two masses

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum speed of a smaller mass in a trebuchet setup with two masses and a stiff rod. Participants suggest using the principle of conservation of energy, specifically potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE), rather than focusing on moment of inertia or torque, which complicates the calculations. There is a debate about treating the masses as point masses due to the lack of information on their shape and density distribution. The direction of torque is clarified as indicating the axis of rotation, but not providing additional information about the forces involved. Overall, the consensus is that simplifying the problem to PE and KE is the most effective approach for finding the maximum speed.
semc
Messages
364
Reaction score
5
Imagine a trebuchet with a stiff rod of 3m and neligible mass.Two masses 60kg and 0.12kg are at its end with the bigger mass 0.14m away from the pivot point. Find the maximum speed the smaller mass attain.

Alright the question is somewhat like this and i start of by finding the moment of inertia and the torque which gives me the angular acceleration but how do i continue from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi semc! :smile:

They're point masses, so I wouldn't bother with moment of inertia …

just use (ordinary) PE + KE = constant, to find the speeds when the heavy mass is at the bottom. :wink:
 
Hi tim i don't understand why the two masses can be treated as point mass since the question doesn't specify that the masses have uniform density distribution. So if we are asked to find the velocity of the mass at a given specific time we should calculate the angular acceleration and from there find the velocity or is there a easier method?

I have another question: I learn that force cross d ,where d is the perpendicular distance from the point the force is acting to the pivot point, gives the torque cause by this force correct? So what does the direction of the torque tell us? Does it merely tell us which way the object is rotating or does it gives us information like the direction of the force? Ain't torque the tendency to rotate an object by a force?
 
The forces can be treated as point masses because we have to :smile:

It's indeed true that we don't know what the shape or density distribution of the masses is.
If the bigger mass would be an iron sphere it would have a radius of about 0.12 m so it certainly matters. The smaller mass can be treated as a point mass with very high accuracy.

Even if you assume that \frac{1}{m} \int r^2 dm of the larger mass is 0.14
you still wouldn't know what its centre of mass is, which you need for calculating it's gravitational potential energy.

In any case, it's much easier to only consider potential and kinetic energy and no forces or torques.
 
Hi semc! Hi willem2! :smile:
So what does the direction of the torque tell us? Does it merely tell us which way the object is rotating or does it gives us information like the direction of the force? Ain't torque the tendency to rotate an object by a force?

The direction of the torque is the axis of rotation, nothing more.
Hi tim i don't understand why the two masses can be treated as point mass since the question doesn't specify that the masses have uniform density distribution.

As willem2 :smile: says, there's no choice … we're not told the shape or size, so we have to assume they're point masses!
semc said:
I learn that force cross d ,where d is the perpendicular distance from the point the force is acting to the pivot point, gives the torque cause by this force correct?

Almost correct. :smile: it's the perpendicular distance from the line of the force to the pivot point. :wink:

Since the only force is gravity, and the line of that force is always vertical, that means the perpendicular distance in this case keeps changing, so the torque keeps changing …

so if you use torque, you'll have a very messy unnecessary integral. :frown:

As willem2 says, it's much easier in this case to only consider PE and KE and no forces or torques (or angular anything). :rolleyes:

Try it! :smile:
 
I understand now. Thanks for he help guys!:biggrin:
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top