Sign Convention for Angular Acceleration in Rotational Motion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the sign convention for angular acceleration in a rotational motion problem involving a rod. The center of instantaneous zero velocity is identified, and calculations for angular velocity and acceleration are presented, leading to differing results among participants. The primary contention revolves around whether the angular acceleration should be positive or negative, with various methods yielding conflicting signs. Participants emphasize the importance of careful algebraic manipulation and the potential for mistakes in calculations. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexities of rotational dynamics and the need for precision in deriving angular quantities.
Santilopez10
Messages
81
Reaction score
8
Homework Statement
Point B of a rod of lenght 0.46 m has a constant velocity of 2 m/s to the left. If ##\theta = \frac{\pi}{4}##, find:
a) The angular velocity and acceleration of the rod.
b) The acceleration of the center of mass.
Relevant Equations
Rigid body kinematics
we know that the center of instantaneous 0 velocity lies in the interception of 2 perpendicular lines to 2 points, which in this case lies above B. The velocity of any point of the rod can be described relative to the center of instantaneuous 0 velocity ##(Q)## as: $$\vec v_{P/Q}=\vec \omega \times \vec r_{P/Q}$$ For our problem, ##\vec v_{B/Q}=-2 \hat i## ,##\vec r_{B/Q}=-0.46 \sin {\frac{\pi}{4}} \hat j=-0.33 \hat j ## and ## \vec \omega = \omega \hat k ## (We will not assume its sign). Then $$-2 \hat i = 0.33 \omega \hat i \rightarrow \omega = -6 \rightarrow \vec \omega=-6 \hat k$$ This seems physically correct as the rod is rotating clockwise. Before we obtain the angular acceleration we need the velocity of point A, which we can relate to B as ##\vec v_{A/O}=\vec v_{B} + \vec \omega \times \vec r_{A/B}## (Where O is a fixed stationary origin) which ends up being ##\vec v_{A/O}=2 \hat j##.
Let's try to find the acceleration of point A, the equation relating the acceleration of A to B` s is: $$ \vec a_{A/O}= \vec a_{B/O}+ \vec \alpha \times \vec r_{A/B} + \vec \omega \times \vec v_{A/B}$$.
For our case B moves with constant velocity at that instant, ##\vec \alpha = \alpha \hat k##, ##\vec r_{A/B} = -0.33 \hat i +0.33 \hat j##, ##\vec a_{A/O}= a \hat j## and ##\vec v_{A/B} = 2 \hat i + 2 \hat j##. After doing the calculations we arrive at a system of equations: $$
\begin{cases}
-0.33 \alpha +12 =0 \\
-0.33 \alpha -12= a
\end{cases} $$
For which only we are interested in the first. From there we obtain that ##\vec \alpha = 36.36 \hat k##. Here raises my question. Should ##\vec \alpha## be negative for this situation? Or is a positive answer physically correct?
 

Attachments

  • Sin título.png
    Sin título.png
    3.5 KB · Views: 204
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Santilopez10 said:
##\vec r_{A/B} = -0.33 \hat i +0.33 \hat j##
Check that.

Your -6 for angular velocity seems a little inaccurate, and you should specify units.
 
haruspex said:
Check that.

Your -6 for angular velocity seems a little inaccurate, and you should specify units.
A/B means “A respect to B”, maybe I was not so clear. Otherwise I do not know what's the problem. ##\cos{\frac{\pi}{4}} 0.46=0.33## same for sin. Then A is located -0.33 meters to the left and 0.33 meters upwards.
 
Santilopez10 said:
A/B means “A respect to B”, maybe I was not so clear. Otherwise I do not know what's the problem. ##\cos{\frac{\pi}{4}} 0.46=0.33## same for sin. Then A is located -0.33 meters to the left and 0.33 meters upwards.
Sorry, my mistake.
Using a very different approach I got an angular acceleration of -26.7 rad s-2. I'm pretty sure it should be negative. As the rod rises from the horizontal, the angular velocity starts at plus infinity and reduces to 2/.46 at the vertical.

Edit: no, no, no. It starts at minus infinity, so a positive angular acceleration is correct!
 
Last edited:
haruspex said:
Sorry, my mistake.
Using a very different approach I got an angular acceleration of -26.7 rad s-2. I'm pretty sure it should be negative. As the rod rises from the horizontal, the angular velocity starts at plus infinity and reduces to 2/.46 at the vertical.
Care to show your approach?
 
Santilopez10 said:
Care to show your approach?
JUst used Cartesian coordinates, ##x=L\cos(\theta)## etc.
Got ##\omega=\frac v{L\sin(\theta)}## and hence ##\dot\omega=-\frac{v}{L\sin^2(\theta)}\omega=-\frac{v^2}{L^2\sin^3(\theta)}##. That gives -53.4, double what I said before.
 
I believe you missed the linear acceleration term that arises due to the quotient rule. Plus the derivative of 1/sin(x) is not 1/sin^2(x).
 
Santilopez10 said:
I believe you missed the linear acceleration term that arises due to the quotient rule. Plus the derivative of 1/sin(x) is not 1/sin^2(x).
I don't think I missed a linear acceleration term; I did use that ##\ddot x=0##. But You are right about the other - I did drop a cos. Careless.
So now I get -37.8, very close to yours, except for the sign.
 
Last edited:
Seems like compared to your answer, the term that is giving me problems is ##\vec \omega \times \vec v_{A/B}##. If only ##\vec v_{A/B}## would be ## -2 \hat i + 2 \hat j## instead of ## 2 \hat i + 2 \hat j## then I could get the negative sign. To be honest I do not see where I committed a mistake.
 
  • #10
Santilopez10 said:
Seems like compared to your answer, the term that is giving me problems is ##\vec \omega \times \vec v_{A/B}##. If only ##\vec v_{A/B}## would be ## -2 \hat i + 2 \hat j## instead of ## 2 \hat i + 2 \hat j## then I could get the negative sign. To be honest I do not see where I committed a mistake.
I have now stepped through your method. In the first of your final pair of equations (the ##\hat i## equation) I get -12, not +12. If still stuck, please post all the steps.

Edit: cancel that - yet another mistake by me.

Btw, I strongly recommend working entirely algebraically, not plugging in any numbers until the final step. It has many advantages, including better precision and readability for others.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
haruspex said:
I have now stepped through your method. In the first of your final pair of equations (the ##\hat i## equation) I get -12, not +12. If still stuck, please post all the steps.

Btw, I strongly recommend working entirely algebraically, not plugging in any numbers until the final step. It has many advantages, including better precision and readability for others.
$$a \hat j= \alpha \hat k \times (-0.33 \hat i + 0.33 \hat j) -6 \hat k \times (2 \hat i + 2 \hat j)$$
$$-6 \hat k \times (2 \hat i + 2 \hat j)=
\begin{vmatrix}
i & j & k \\
0 & 0 & -6 \\
2 & 2 & 0
\end{vmatrix} =6
\begin{vmatrix}
i & j \\
2 & 2
\end{vmatrix} = 12 \hat i -12 \hat j$$
then in the ##\hat i## equation I get +12.
 
  • #12
Santilopez10 said:
$$a \hat j= \alpha \hat k \times (-0.33 \hat i + 0.33 \hat j) -6 \hat k \times (2 \hat i + 2 \hat j)$$
$$-6 \hat k \times (2 \hat i + 2 \hat j)=
\begin{vmatrix}
i & j & k \\
0 & 0 & -6 \\
2 & 2 & 0
\end{vmatrix} =6
\begin{vmatrix}
i & j \\
2 & 2
\end{vmatrix} = 12 \hat i -12 \hat j$$
then in the ##\hat i## equation I get +12.
Yes, you are right again, it is +12. But I think I have it... Please see my edit to post #4.

(I can't believe I made so many blunders in one thread. I may have to hand back my award.)
 
  • #13
haruspex said:
Yes, you are right again, it is +12. But I think I have it... Please see my edit to post #4.

(I can't believe I made so many blunders in one thread. I may have to hand back my award.)
Alright, but then why when using parametrization we get a negative answer?
 
  • #14
haruspex said:
JUst used Cartesian coordinates, ##x=L\cos(\theta)## etc.
Got ##\omega=\frac v{L\sin(\theta)}## and hence ##\dot\omega=-\frac{v}{L\sin^2(\theta)}\omega=-\frac{v^2}{L^2\sin^3(\theta)}##. That gives -53.4, double what I said before.
You missed a negative sign in the expression for ##\omega## which arises from the derivative of cosine.
 
  • #15
bump.
 
  • #16
Santilopez10 said:
You missed a negative sign in the expression for ##\omega## which arises from the derivative of cosine.
Yes, I was rather careless wasn't I.
Thanks.
 
Back
Top