Signs in the equation, angular acceleration

AI Thread Summary
When using the formula ag = alfa * r, it's important to consider the signs of angular acceleration and acceleration based on the chosen coordinate system. The discussion emphasizes that while the formula provides a magnitude, the signs should be consistent with the vector conventions used, such as the right-hand rule. In cases where the radius is constant, differentiating the velocity equation can clarify the relationship between angular and linear quantities. The vector approach is recommended for accuracy, especially when dealing with scalars, as it helps ensure the correct signs are applied. Overall, using vector methods is viewed as a safer and more reliable practice in these calculations.
Bauxiet
Messages
18
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Counter clockwise is positive, right is positive and up is positive.
My problem statement: When I use the formula ag = alfa*r do I have to take signs into account? Or is this formula just for the magnitude and will the signs be already taken into account in other equations? (F= m*a for example)

Ro9wFy3.png

Homework Equations



Ag = alfa*r (gravity point acceleration)
F = m*a
M = I*alfa

alfa = angular acceleration

The Attempt at a Solution


I am a little bit confused. In the excercise underneath I did not and I became the right solution. I think this formula gives the magnitude, the signs are already taken in account in other equations where you fill in the ag = alfa*r. Is this right?

The underneath picture is as an example. Look at the highlight. My alfa is negative (angular acceleration) and my ag (aA in this case) is positive. Ag is the acceleration of the disk. IF I had taken the negative sign of the alfa into account, that would mean that my Ag would be negative, which is not the case!
Is this right? Correct me if I am wrong, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The relationship between acceleration, angular acceleration and radius is best considered as a vector equation, and in that view it involves cross products. There are various conventions, such as the right-hand rule, regarding the order of arguments to the cross products and the positive directions for the vectors. When all the conventions are used consistently, the correct sign comes out.
Similarly for velocities.
However, it is not a simple conversion of Acceleration = angular accleration x radius to vector form, like maybe: ##\vec a=\vec \alpha \times\vec r##. (Clearly, because that would not register any acceleration for a purely radial acceleration.)
E.g. for velocity the equation is ##(\vec r.\vec r)\vec \omega=\vec r \times \vec v##.

If working with scalars, I do not know a better way than simply reasoning out the sign of the result.

Edit: Or maybe...
In the special case where the radius is constant, we can differentiate the velocity equation to get
##(\vec r.\vec r)\vec \alpha=\dot{\vec r} \times \vec v+\vec r \times \dot{\vec v} = \vec v\times \vec v+\vec r\times\vec a= \vec r\times\vec a##.
 
Last edited:
haruspex said:
The relationship between acceleration, angular acceleration and radius is best considered as a vector equation, and in that view it involves cross products. There are various conventions, such as the right-hand rule, regarding the order of arguments to the cross products and the positive directions for the vectors. When all the conventions are used consistently, the correct sign comes out.
Similarly for velocities.
However, it is not a simple conversion of Acceleration = angular accleration x radius to vector form, like maybe: ##\vec a=\vec \alpha \times\vec r##. (Clearly, because that would not register any acceleration for a purely radial acceleration.)
E.g. for velocity the equation is ##(\vec r.\vec r)\vec \omega=\vec r \times \vec v##.

If working with scalars, I do not know a better way than simply reasoning out the sign of the result.

Edit: Or maybe...
In the special case where the radius is constant, we can differentiate the velocity equation to get
##(\vec r.\vec r)\vec \alpha=\dot{\vec r} \times \vec v+\vec r \times \dot{\vec v} = \vec v\times \vec v+\vec r\times\vec a= \vec r\times\vec a##.

Thank you! If I use the vector method I become indeed a positive number. This method can always be used? Also If I am working not with vectors as in my picture above?

And if I work with scalars, your method is just to remove the sign? Or maybe if ag is pointing to the positive direction and the result of alfa*r is negative, just to remove the negative sign because ag is positive?

I think the vector method is in this case much more safe and if it is allowed to use in any situation I think it is better to use the vector method.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top