Sign Convention for Angular Acceleration in Rotational Motion

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion focuses on the sign convention for angular acceleration in rotational motion, specifically analyzing a rod's angular velocity and acceleration. The calculations reveal that the angular velocity, denoted as ##\vec \omega = -6 \hat k##, indicates clockwise rotation. The participants derive the angular acceleration using the equation $$\vec a_{A/O}= \vec a_{B/O}+ \vec \alpha \times \vec r_{A/B} + \vec \omega \times \vec v_{A/B}$$, ultimately concluding that the angular acceleration is ##\vec \alpha = 36.36 \hat k##. The discussion emphasizes the importance of maintaining consistent sign conventions and the potential for errors in calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of angular velocity and angular acceleration concepts
  • Familiarity with vector cross products in physics
  • Knowledge of Cartesian coordinates and their application in rotational motion
  • Proficiency in solving systems of equations related to motion
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of angular acceleration in rotational dynamics
  • Learn about vector calculus applications in physics
  • Explore the implications of sign conventions in rotational motion
  • Investigate the use of parametric equations in analyzing motion
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone involved in the study of rotational dynamics and motion analysis.

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: 217
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
806
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K