Rotational Motion of a thin rod about a pivot

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the angular velocity and forces involved in the motion of a uniform thin rod pivoted at one end. For part A, the angular velocity when the rod reaches a vertical position is derived using conservation of energy principles. Part B involves determining the force exerted by the pivot at that moment. The main confusion arises in part C, where the user initially misapplies conservation of energy to find the initial angular velocity needed for a 270° swing but later realizes their approach was correct after clarification. The connection between the answers for parts A and C is highlighted, emphasizing that both involve similar potential energy changes during the rod's motion.
WWCY
Messages
476
Reaction score
14

Homework Statement


A uniform thin rod of Length L and mass M is pivoted at one end is held horizontally and then released from rest. Assuming the pivot to be frictionless, find

a) Angular velocity of the rod when it reaches its vertical position
b) The force exerted by the pivot at this time
c) Now we want to swing the rod 270° clockwise so that it will reach a vertical position at the top of its swing. What initial angular velocity is needed for the rod to achieve that?

Homework Equations


Part a)
Parallel-axis theorem
Conservation of Energy

Part b)
∑Fcm = mω2r

Part c)
Conservation of Energy?

The Attempt at a Solution


I actually have no issues with parts A and B but only with C.

My initial concept for C was to use the principle of COE
Ugrav, 1 + Krotational, 1 = Ugrav, 2
but this was wrong.

May I know what my concept for part c should be and why I was wrong in the first place?

P.s. Apologies if this post was not well done, it's my first post and feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
WWCY said:
Part c)
Conservation of Ene
Ugrav, 1 + Krotational, 1 = Ugrav, 2
but this was wrong.

Why do you think it is wrong ?

Please show your calculations and result you obtained .
 
Having answered a, there is a very quick route to c.
 
Damn, apologies everyone, my initial assumptions were right. I got confused because of some grading error. Sorry for taking up your time!

In any case it was:

Ugrav1 + K rot 1 = Ugrav2
1/2Iω2 + mgL = mg(3/2)L
ω=(mgL/I)1/2
where I = 1/3mL2 with parallel axis theorem, which leads to:
ω = (3g/L)1/2 rads/s
 
WWCY said:
Damn, apologies everyone, my initial assumptions were right. I got confused because of some grading error. Sorry for taking up your time!

In any case it was:

Ugrav1 + K rot 1 = Ugrav2
1/2Iω2 + mgL = mg(3/2)L
ω=(mgL/I)1/2
where I = 1/3mL2 with parallel axis theorem, which leads to:
ω = (3g/L)1/2 rads/s
Right... and do you see the connection with the answer to a?
 
haruspex said:
Right... and do you see the connection with the answer to a?

Apart from them being the same, I can't. Could you enlighten me?
 
WWCY said:
Apart from them being the same, I can't. Could you enlighten me?
In both cases the potential difference relates to a rotation from horizontal to vertical, and in both cases it is stationary at one end of the motion, so the speeds at the other end must be the same.
 
  • Like
Likes conscience and WWCY
haruspex said:
In both cases the potential difference relates to a rotation from horizontal to vertical, and in both cases it is stationary at one end of the motion, so the speeds at the other end must be the same.

I never thought of it this way before, thank you for the insight.
 
Back
Top