Why is the result different in Method 2 for the rotating rod experiment?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on discrepancies between two methods for calculating the velocity of a rotating rod with attached rings. Method 1, which conserves angular momentum and energy, yields a velocity of ##v=3##, while Method 2 results in ##v=\sqrt{10}## due to incorrect application of angular momentum principles in a non-uniformly rotating frame. Key issues identified include the omission of azimuthal forces and the failure to account for changing angular velocity. The conversation emphasizes the importance of including units and clear derivations in physics equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of angular momentum conservation principles
  • Familiarity with non-uniform rotational motion
  • Knowledge of fictitious forces: centrifugal, Coriolis, and azimuthal
  • Proficiency in calculus for evaluating integrals in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the effects of fictitious forces in rotating reference frames
  • Learn about the derivation and application of angular momentum equations
  • Explore the implications of non-uniform rotation on physical systems
  • Review SI unit conventions in physics problem-solving
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and professionals involved in mechanics, particularly those focusing on rotational dynamics and energy conservation principles.

Divya
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
A rigid horizontal smooth rod $AB$ of mass $0.75 kg$ and length $40 cm$ can rotate freely about a fixed vertical axis through its mid point $O$. Two rings each of mass $1 Kg$ are initially at rest at a distance of $10 cm$ from $O$ on the either side of the rod.The rod is set in rotation with an angular velocity of $30$ radians per second. Find the velocity of each ring along the length of the rod in m/s when they reach the ends of the rod.
Relevant Equations
(I am new to this forum, I don't know what to write in 'Relevant Equations' field)
Method 1: Simply conserving angular momentum about the the fixed vertical axis and conserving energy gives ##v=3##, which is correct according to my book.

Method 2: Conserving angular momentum when the two rings reach distance ##x## from the centre gives
##(0.01+2x^2) \omega =0.9##
Also in the rod's frame ##a=v dv/dx =\omega ^2 x## (where a and v radial acceleration and velocities).
So, ##v^2/2=\int_{0.1}^{0.2} \frac {0.9xdx} {(0.01+2x^2)^2}=5##.
So, ##v=\sqrt{10}##.
What is wrong in second method?

Edit: Everything is in SI unit
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The angular velocity of the rod decreases as the rings move outwards. The formula you used in the second method doesn't work with a reference frame that changes its angular velocity.

There are a lot of units missing.
 
Why? The fictitious forces are centrifugal, coriolis and azimuthal. Here only centrifugal force is in radial direction. So, the equation should be correct.
 
mfb said:
The angular velocity of the rod decreases as the rings move outwards. The formula you used in the second method doesn't work with a reference frame that changes its angular velocity.

There are a lot of units missing.
Sorry, everything is in SI unit.
 
These are the forces in a reference frame where the angular velocity stays the same. I guess you could try to do that with the initial angular velocity but it just makes things needlessly complicated.
Divya said:
Sorry, everything is in SI unit.
And it should be added to the quantities that have units. It's a bad habit to not do that, especially combined with equations where quantities are not introduced first. 0.01 is what? Sure, it's possible to guess it from context, but it's just unnecessary. Don't let others guess.
 
mfb said:
These are the forces in a reference frame where the angular velocity stays the same. I guess you could try to do that with the initial angular velocity but it just makes things needlessly complicated.And it should be added to the quantities that have units. It's a bad habit to not do that, especially combined with equations where quantities are not introduced first. 0.01 is what? Sure, it's possible to guess it from context, but it's just unnecessary. Don't let others guess.
As far I know, in case of non-uniformly rotating frame, everything is same except that we also need to add azimuthal force. And here azimuthal force is not in radial direction.
 
Divya said:
##(0.01+2x^2) \omega =0.9##
Plugging in numbers straight away and with no text explanation makes it hard to follow the reasoning. Please explain the derivation of this equation. I was expecting ##x^2\omega=x_0^2\omega_0##.
 
@haruspex, I have added the explanation of this equation in this attachment.
 

Attachments

  • 16021384310777060270523105675145.jpg
    16021384310777060270523105675145.jpg
    30 KB · Views: 186
Divya said:
@haruspex, I have added the explanation of this equation in this attachment.
Ok, thanks.
Your error is that you forgot to square the 0.9.
 
  • #10
haruspex said:
Ok, thanks.
Your error is that you forgot to square the 0.9.
I don't think so.
 
  • #11
Divya said:
##(0.01+2x^2) \omega =0.9##
So, ##v^2/2=\int_{0.1}^{0.2} \frac {0.9xdx} {(0.01+2x^2)^2}=5##.
## \omega =\frac {0.9}{0.01+2x^2}##
## \omega ^2=\frac {0.9^2}{(0.01+2x^2)^2}##
 
  • #12
Thank you very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K