Rotational Motion Clarification

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the moment of inertia of a ball attached to a massless rod, which is being accelerated about the free end. The initial assumption is that the moment of inertia can be simplified to mr^2, similar to a free ball. However, it is clarified that the ball also rotates around its own axis, necessitating a greater force for the same acceleration. A more accurate calculation of the moment of inertia includes both the ball's inertia and the rod's, represented as I = I_{ball} + mL^2. This highlights the importance of considering all rotational aspects in physics calculations.
Moose352
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
I got a little confused thinking about this. Consider a ball attatched to a (massless) rod. This system is to be accelerate about the free end of the rod. From what I know, the moment of inertia for this system would simply be the mr^2, since this is the same case as a free ball being accelerated at the same rate. However, it seems to me that the ball is also rotating around its own axis (since it is fixed on the rod), and thus wouldn't the force necessary for the same rate of acceleration be greater?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is this question too dumb for anyone to even answer? :wink:
 
Originally posted by Moose352
Is this question too dumb for anyone to even answer? :wink:
No, it's an excellent question.

Originally posted by Moose352
However, it seems to me that the ball is also rotating around its own axis (since it is fixed on the rod), and thus wouldn't the force necessary for the same rate of acceleration be greater?
I would say that the answer is yes. Using I = mL2 (L is length of stick) is just an approximation: it assumes the radius of the ball can be neglected.

A more realistic value for rotational inertia must include that of the ball as well:

I = I_{ball} + mL^2 = \frac{2}{5}mR^2 + mL^2
 
Thanks Doc. My physics instructor (and the book) was saying otherwise and wouldn't concede to my view.
 
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...
Back
Top