Rotational energy conservation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the energy conservation of a pin-ended free-falling rod, focusing on the correct application of kinetic energy formulas. The kinetic energy is expressed as the sum of translational and rotational components, with specific attention to the center of mass and the moment of inertia. A key point is the use of the parallel axis theorem to adjust the moment of inertia when the center of rotation is at the end of the rod. There is confusion regarding the simultaneous use of angular and linear velocities, with a clarification that only one reference point should be used for calculating kinetic energy. The conversation emphasizes the importance of consistency in the choice of reference points for accurate energy conservation analysis.
dusurme
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I am a little confused about the energy conservation of a pin ended free falling rod.
When i try to derive energy conservation equation i am not sure including angular and linear velocity at the same time. I try to visualize the problem in the attached picture and put my derivation also.
Any explanation will be appretiated.
Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • photo.jpg
    photo.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 418
Physics news on Phys.org
This is the kinetic energy in general:

KE = \frac{1}{2}m v_{cm}^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_{cm}\omega^2


for this example the velocity of the center of mass
v_{cm} = \frac{L}{2}\omega

KE = \frac{1}{2}m \frac{L^2}{4}\omega^2 + \frac{1}{2}I_{cm}\omega^2

Notice if the center of rotation is at the end of the rod, the angular velocity \omega is the same as for the center of rotation being the center of mass.

The moment of inertia changes by the parallel axis theorem
I_0 = I_{cm} + m\left(\frac{L}{2}\right)^2 = I_{cm} + m\frac{L^2}{4}

So we find that the rotational kinetic energy about the end of the rod is equal to the total kinetic energy from before.
\frac{1}{2}I_0\omega^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left(I_{cm} + m\frac{L^2}{4}\right)\omega^2 = KE
 
MisterX thanks for the answer.
Could you also suggest me an alternative way of determining angular velocity?
 
dusurme said:
MisterX thanks for the answer.
Could you also suggest me an alternative way of determining angular velocity?
No, he's saying that your solution is incorrect: either you use the kinetic energy of rotation with respect to the centre of mass (and then the moment of inertia is not the one you wrote) *and* the centre of mass' kinetic energy, or the kinetic energy of rotation with respect to the pin, *only* (with the moment of inertia you wrote).
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top