Can Rotating Objects Store Potential Energy Like Springs?

AI Thread Summary
Rotating objects do not store potential energy in the same way as springs or masses in a gravitational field; instead, their energy is classified as kinetic energy. The energy associated with rotation can be calculated using the formula E = 0.5 I ω², where I is the moment of inertia and ω is the angular velocity. When a fast-spinning object is set down, it can convert some of its rotational energy into linear motion, demonstrating energy transfer. The discussion highlights that while rotational energy exists, it does not constitute potential energy in the traditional sense. Overall, the concept of potential energy in rotating systems is complex and involves the entire system's dynamics, including external forces.
FallenApple
Messages
564
Reaction score
61
So masses on springs store potential energy. Height in a gravational field store potential energy for the mass there.So why isn't there a potential energy stored inside rotating objects? Surely there are ways to translate the rotational energy to kinetic. Its kinda like a spring. If a set down a fast spinning object, it will roll forward slowing its rotation down and speeding up its linear motion. One type of energy is transferred to another.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
FallenApple said:
potential energy stored inside rotating objects?

rotations are described by 'kinetic' state - a change of configuration so why we seek a potential energy-
potential energy is manifest in the position of bodies in a 'field'
if one is sitting at the seventh floor of a building he has a potential to do work if he falls to the ground in Earth's gravitational field- its not due to inertia of rest or motion.
if the person is spinning as well as sitting on the sae height -what additional potential he developes- added energy is best estimated by his rotational energy which is 'kinetic ' in character.
 
FallenApple said:
Surely there are ways to translate the rotational energy to kinetic.
I don't understand. It is already kinetic.
 
FallenApple said:
Surely there are ways to translate the rotational energy to kinetic. Its kinda like a spring. If a set down a fast spinning object, it will roll forward slowing its rotation down and speeding up its linear motion. One type of energy is transferred to another.

What Dale said. The energy rotational energy stored in a spinning mass _is_ kinetic energy. No need to "convert it".

You can calculate it as..

E = 0.5 I ω2

where
I is the Moment of Inertia (analogous to mass in a linear system)
ω is the angular velocity (analogous to velocity in a linear system)

FallenApple said:
So why isn't there a potential energy stored inside rotating objects?

See torsion spring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring

14154-4703257.jpg
 
FallenApple said:
If a set down a fast spinning object, it will roll forward slowing its rotation down and speeding up its linear motion.

That might appear to be the case but you need to think about the whole system including the planet you are doing the experiment on.

If you spin up a flywheel on the surface of the Earth you affect the rotation of the planet (Newtons laws). There is no net change in the angular momentum of the combined planet/flywheel system. That's because there has been no external force applied to the system.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
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