Show a second angular speed given a reduced radius

AI Thread Summary
A particle on a string initially at a radius of 0.22m with an angular speed of 0.55 rad/s has its string shortened to 0.15m. The conservation of angular momentum is applied to show that the new angular speed is 1.18 rad/s. By equating the initial and final angular momentum, the calculation confirms that the values are consistent within a small margin of error. The approach emphasizes the relationship between radius and angular speed, demonstrating how reducing the radius increases the angular speed. The final formula derived is ω_f = ω_i (r_i^2 / r_f^2), confirming the new angular speed.
littlemayhem
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A particle on a string at radius r=0.22m is moving in a (horizontal) circle with angular speed \omega =0.55 rad/s. The string is shortened to 0.15m. Show that the new angular speed is 1.18rad/s

Homework Equations



v = r\omega
a = \omega^{2}r
a = r\alpha
\omega^{2}_f = \omega^{2}_{i} + 2 \theta\alpha

The Attempt at a Solution



Okay. At first I thought this is really simple, which means I'm missing something. I assumed that there was no acceleration, and velocity was constant, but that can't be the case.

I tried r_{i} * \omega_{i} = 0.121
and then tried
r_{f} * \omega_{f} = 0.177

Which clearly isn't right for constant velocity - there must be acceleration, but I don't know over what period the acceleration occurs. I've looked at the kinematics equations for angular motion, but they either involve time or theta, variables not mentioned.

I know it says speed, but I'm presuming it means acceleration - and vectors aren't really relevant in this case, anyway, since there's no change of direction.

The only thing I can think is that we're supposed to work backwards, knowing that the acceleration is from 0.55 to 1.18 rad, but I don't know how to work that out in rad/s^{2}, because that involves time.

I just want a way to approach the problem. We're studying moments of inertia mainly, I'm also thinking I might just be looking at this the wrong way, but I'm not sure. Any guidance would be appreciated - I really want to have a clear understanding from my own workings.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
littlemayhem said:
I just want a way to approach the problem.
Try the conservation of angular momentum.
 
Thank you!

Okay:

L = r x p = r p sin \theta where sin 90 = 1 so

L = rp & p=mv so

L = rmv and v = \omegar so

L = r^{2}m\omega

if we equate {r^{2}m\omega}_{initial} and {r^{2}m\omega}_{final} and cancel the mass (which stays the same), we get

r^{2}_i * \omega_i = r^{2}_f * \omega_f

with the values included, we have

0.22 * 0.22 * 0.55 = 0.15 * 0.15 * 1.18

which equal 0.02662 and 0.02655 respectively.

I suppose that the small difference is attributable to the fact that the initial values were given only to two decimal places, and thus that my calculation is correct?
 
Nice work. Looks good to me.
\omega _f = \omega _i \frac{{r_i^2 }}{{r_f^2 }} = 0.55\frac{{0.22^2 }}{{0.15^2 }} = 1.18{\rm{rad}} \cdot {\rm{s}}^{ - 1}
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top