Rotational motion: air puck revolving Is it possible?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of a theoretical setup involving a 1 kg mass and an air puck in rotational motion, specifically examining whether the system can achieve equilibrium in real life. Participants explore concepts related to ideal conditions, friction, and the dynamics of circular motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether it is possible to set up the described system in real life, noting that it is an "ideal" situation that simplifies the physics involved.
  • Others argue that the concept of a frictionless table is practically impossible, suggesting that real-world factors like friction would prevent indefinite motion.
  • One participant mentions that if the puck is given a sufficient initial push, it could theoretically raise the mass until equilibrium is reached, but this would not last due to energy dissipation.
  • Another participant points out that in an ideal scenario, the puck would oscillate around the radius appropriate for the system's angular momentum rather than settling at a fixed radius.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of conservation of angular momentum and how it affects the motion of the puck and mass.
  • There are references to central potential motion and effective potential, with some participants providing mathematical expressions related to the system's dynamics.
  • Several participants share links to applets demonstrating orbits under different central forces, contributing to the exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the scenario is idealized and that real-world conditions would complicate the situation. However, there are multiple competing views regarding the nature of equilibrium and the effects of friction, leading to an unresolved discussion on the practical implications of the theoretical setup.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on idealized conditions, the assumption of frictionless surfaces, and the potential for oscillation around a radius rather than achieving a stable equilibrium. The discussion also highlights the dependence on initial conditions and the complexities introduced by real-world factors.

**Mariam**
Messages
46
Reaction score
1
question here

Hello, this isn't really a homework question as I understand how to solve it. But just out of curiosity, is it possible for this to actually be set up in real life and for the 1 kg mass to be in equilibrium?

because when I imagine such a situation I feel that the revolving puck will slowly decrease in radius as the 1 kg mass pulls it down.
what am I missing in the picture??

Thanks for your help :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The wording "frictionless" and "ideal" should already give it away. You may be able to obtain a good approximation with very little dissipation of energy out of the system, in which case the situation will be quite well described. However, if there is dissipation of energy out of the system due to friction etc, then it will not go on forever.

Edit: That is, it is about as possible as getting an air puck to travel indefinitely with constant momentum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: **Mariam**
Now that someone has made the first answer, I can come in.
First,
is it possible for this to actually be set up in real life
as Orodruin says, no! This is an "ïdeal" situation, and like all "frictionless", "light", "inextensible", decriptions, is intended to simplify the situation, either to bring out a principle or to make a calculation easier.

But
I feel that the revolving puck will slowly decrease in radius as the 1 kg mass pulls it down.
I wondered why you feel this? If it were just the friction, you'd hardly be puzzled: the problem specifies a frictionless table, you know that is practically impossible, so you would not be puzzled. So do you think that even with a frictionless table, the 1kg should pull the puck inwards?

The 1kg mass is pulling the puck towards the centre. This force is causing the puck to accelerate towards the centre. The puck is accelerating towards the centre and that is why it moves in a circle - of constant radius.
The puck equally is pulling on the string and the string on the 1kg mass. So the mass has a gravitational force down and the string force up, giving no net force and no acceleration - as the question says, it is in equilibrium.

Now, if you just set this up and gave the puck a good push to set it in orbit, you might not push it hard enough, then indeed, the mass would fall and the puck move in towards the centre. Or you might push too hard and the puck moves outwards pulling the mass up. But the question says you did it just right to get equilibrium, so you can calculate how fast that is.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: **Mariam**
Just to add to this: In the ideal situation, the problem also exhibits rotational symmetry, resulting in conservation of angular momentum. Thus, if the system has non zero angular momentum to start with, the puck will never be able to fall through the hole, even if the trajectory is not a perfect circle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: **Mariam**
In the real world...

You could set the puck rotating fast enough to actually raise the 1kg mass (mv2/r > 1kg * g). As radius increases the tension on the string reduces. That continues until they are in equilibrium (might happen rapidly). Then as friction slows the puck the tension would reduce and the 1kg mass would descend.
 
CWatters said:
As radius increases the tension on the string reduces. That continues until they are in equilibrium (might happen rapidly).

What do you mean by "equilibrium". In the idealised situation, the puck will not tend to a fixed radius, but oscillate around the radius appropriate for the angular momentum in the system. In the "real world" with friction, the same thing will happen apart from the fact that the system will gradually lose angular momentum as well as energy.
 
Good point. I hadn't considered that it could overshoot the "appropriate radius for the angular momentum" and then oscillate about that radius.
 
CWatters said:
Good point. I hadn't considered that it could overshoot the "appropriate radius for the angular momentum" and then oscillate about that radius.

It is basically nothing else than a motion in a central potential with potential ##m_2 g r##. The full effective potential is ##L^2/(2m_1 r^2) + m_2 gr##, where ##L## is the angular momentum and the mass for the kinetic energy term in the ##r## direction is ##m_1 + m_2##. Of course assuming I did not go awry with the algebra done in my head ... :rolleyes:
 
Orodruin said:
It is basically nothing else than a motion in a central potential with potential ##m_2 g r##.

This applet shows orbits for different types of central force. The one relevant here is the constant one (green). So that's what you get without friction, if you don't set it up for a perfectly circular orbit:

http://www.fastswf.com/kRR_YZ0 (hit reload on that page to get a different random initialization)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin
  • #10
A.T. said:
This applet shows orbits for different types of central force. The one relevant here is the constant one (green). So that's what you get without friction, if you don't set it up for a perfectly circular orbit:

http://www.fastswf.com/kRR_YZ0 (hit reload on that page to get a different random initialization)

As luck would have it, my first random initialization made the green orbit almost perfectly circular - imagine my confusion before I read the last part :biggrin:
I also suspect I know the form of the force for the red orbit (although numerical implementation is not perfect, I still see orbital precession for very elongated orbits) :rolleyes:

Edit: Oh, look at that, it actually says in the top left corner - I was right :-p
 
  • #11
Orodruin said:
although numerical implementation is not perfect, I still see orbital precession for very elongated orbits
Yes, that's an artifact. The red and blue orbits should always be closed, consistent with Bertrand's theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem
 
  • #12
A.T. said:
Yes, that's an artifact. The red and blue orbits should always be closed, consistent with Bertrand's theorem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem

As a matter of curiosity, in this year's class I did the red orbits in lectures and let the students attack the blue orbits on the exam ... :rolleyes:
 
  • #13
Orodruin said:
... let the students attack the blue orbits on the exam ...
The F ~ r orbits are also on the one pound note, at least suggestively because of the way the ellipse diagram overlays with the sun in the background:
One+Pound+Note+with+Isaac+Newton.JPG
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K