Relative angular velocity in a rotating rod

AI Thread Summary
In a discussion about the relative angular velocity of a rotating rod, two methods were proposed to determine the relative angular velocity of point B with respect to the midpoint. One method suggests that the relative angular velocity is zero since both points share the same angular velocity, while the other method calculates it as w by finding the velocities of both points and their distance apart. The confusion arises from differing interpretations of the reference frame and the nature of angular velocity in a rotating system. Clarification on the coordinate system and the motion of points in that frame is essential for resolving the discrepancy. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately determining relative angular velocities in rotational dynamics.
TyrionTestBok
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Consider a rod AB rotating about one of it's end A with angular velocity w.
Now angular velocity of each point of the rod is same i.e. w.
But if we have to find the relative angular velocity of the end B w.r.t. mid point of rod, what it will be?

Will it be zero because, w-w=0

or first we have to find the velocity of end B which is wR(R is length of Rod)
then find velocity of mid-point wR/2 and then find relative velocity of end B w.r.t. to mid point which is
wR-wR/2=wR/2
then divide it by distance between B and mid point which is R/2 and get relative angular velocity which now comes out to be w.

Which method is right and why the other method is wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TyrionTestBok said:
Now angular velocity of each point of the rod is same i.e. w.
You seem to have answered your own question.
 
Svein said:
You seem to have answered your own question.
But why two answer are coming through different method?
 
Make your xy coordinates at the end that is stationary. Clearly, as you say, the other end is rotating in that frame of reference.

Now make your xy coordinates with the x-axis along the rod and the y-axis perpendicular to that. Are any points on the rod rotating in that frame of reference?
 
phinds said:
Make your xy coordinates at the end that is stationary. Clearly, as you say, the other end is rotating in that frame of reference.

Now make your xy coordinates with the x-axis along the rod and the y-axis perpendicular to that. Are any points on the rod rotating in that frame of reference?
I didnt get you. Sorry :(
 
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