Rolling without slipping taking the contact point as pivot

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the dynamics of a disk that is slipping while moving to the right with counterclockwise angular velocity. When analyzing the motion, using the center of mass as the pivot point yields different results compared to using the ground contact point, leading to contradictions in angular acceleration. It is clarified that if the disk is slipping, it does not exhibit rolling motion, and the frictional force only decelerates the translational motion without causing rotation. The contact point can be considered a pivot, but it complicates the analysis due to the fictitious forces involved in a non-inertial frame. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that slipping alters the expected relationships between linear and angular motion.
Soren4
Messages
127
Reaction score
2
I'm confused about this rolling without (or better with) slipping situation. Suppose to have a disk with initial velocity ##v## and angular velocity ##\omega##. The motion is to the right but the angular velocity is counterclockwise.
55555555555555555555555555555555555.png

There are no forces acting on the disk besides the kinetic friction##\mathbf{f}##.

Things are ok if I take as pivot point the center of mass.
$$\{\begin{matrix} - \mathbf{f} = m\mathbf{a_{CM}}\\ - \mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{f} =I_{cm} \mathbf{\alpha} \end{matrix}\tag{1}$$

But if I take the point ##O## on the ground, then the kinetic friction has zero torque.

$$\{\begin{matrix} - \mathbf{f} = m\mathbf{a_{CM}}\\ 0 =I_{O} \mathbf{\alpha} \end{matrix}\tag{2}$$

I assumed that the angular velocity (and so $\alpha$) is the same it I take as pivot the center of mass or the point##O##.

If this is the case than parallel axis theorem can be used and $$I_O=I_{cm}+m \mathbf{r}^2$$But there is a contradiction since I get ##\alpha=0## from ##(2)## and ##\alpha\neq0## from##(1)##.

How can that be? Maybe##\alpha## is not the same in the two cases?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Soren4 said:
I'm confused about this rolling without slipping situation. Suppose to have a disk with initial velocity vvv and angular velocity ωω\omega. The motion is to the right but the angular velocity is counterclockwise.

i fail to see a counter clockwise angular velocity when the disk is moving to the right side.
 
  • Like
Likes Soren4
drvrm said:
i fail to see a counter clockwise angular velocity when the disk is moving to the right side.
I'm sorry the disk is actually slipping, I called this rolling without slippping problem, because usually in these problems you have to find the conditions for rolling without slipping indeed.

Just ignore it, the disk is slipping, of course
 
Soren4 said:
I'm sorry the disk is actually slipping, I called this rolling without slippping problem, because usually in these problems you have to find the conditions for rolling without slipping indeed.

Just ignore it, the disk is slipping, of course

if the disk is slipping only ,then there is no rolling motion;

then the equations for the motion of center of mass only and
the frictional force will be slowly decelerating the motion - no rotation of the disk.

if you consider both rolling and slipping combined then only the torque due to friction will operate about an axis passing through center of mass,
 
If the disk is sliding, O is not a pivot point, and could not be used as a basis for parallel axis method. The bottom point on the disk would be a pivot point, but it's sliding and decelerating.

You could consider the contact point of the sliding disk as a pivot point, but it's an accelerating (decelerating) frame of reference, so there would be a fictitious force effectively applied to the center of mass of the disk, related to the acceleration (deceleration) of the disk.
 
Last edited:
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top