Rigid body motion - thin disc

AI Thread Summary
The gravitational potential energy of the chain's center of mass is equal to the total kinetic energy of the disc once fully wrapped. The equation presented highlights that the decrease in potential energy, expressed as mg(l/2), translates into both rotational and translational kinetic energy. Specifically, this is represented by the equation mg(l/2) = (1/2)Iω² + (1/2)mv². The distinction between the mass variables is crucial, with 'm' referring to the chain's mass in the kinetic energy term. This illustrates the conservation of energy principle in the context of rigid body motion.
Celso
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Why is the gravitational potential energy of the chain's center of mass equal to the total kinetic energy of the disc after it was fully wrapped? My first thought was to write ##E_{0}=(M/2+M)g∗2πR=E_{f}= Ep## (from the chain) ##+Ec## (from the disc). Instead he wrote ## mg \frac{l}{2} ## = ## \frac{1}{2} I \omega² + \frac{1}{2} M v² ##
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot from 2019-09-24 16-39-56.png
    Screenshot from 2019-09-24 16-39-56.png
    8.9 KB · Views: 277
Physics news on Phys.org
Celso said:
Summary: This is an example from the book (Analytical mechanics, Fowles), I don't get the energy equation step

##E_{rot} = 1/2 I \omega² ##
## E_{translational} = 1/2 mv²##
## E_{potential} = mgh##

Why is the gravitational potential energy of the chain's center of mass equal to the total kinetic energy of the disc after it was fully wrapped? My first thought was to write ##E_{0}=(M/2+M)g∗2πR=E_{f}= Ep## (from the chain) ##+Ec## (from the disc). Instead he wrote ## mg \frac{l}{2} ## = ## \frac{1}{2} I \omega² + \frac{1}{2} M v² ##
The decrease in the chain's gravitational potential energy is equal to the (rotational) kinetic energy of the disc PLUS the (translational) kinetic energy of the chain. So, as the author wrote,:

mg \frac{l}{2} = \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2 + \frac{1}{2} m v^2 [Note: m not M in the last term]

AM
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Back
Top