Simulatenous Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simultaneous conservation of momentum and conservation of energy in the context of rotating wheels with varying characteristics. Participants explore the implications of angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy, considering both translational and rotational aspects of motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents three wheels with different masses and radii, calculating their angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy, suggesting that energy forms other than rotational kinetic energy must be considered.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of heat as a form of energy that may be present, drawing parallels to linear momentum problems in collisions.
  • A participant mentions regular kinetic energy, questioning whether it should be included since the wheels are moving at different speeds.
  • Some participants clarify that they initially interpreted the wheels as stationary but rotating, realizing that translational kinetic energy must also be accounted for if the wheels are moving.
  • Discussion shifts to a figure skater's moment of inertia and the work done to reduce it, with participants agreeing that this relates to changes in kinetic energy.
  • Further exploration of the work done on a ball swinging on a rope is presented, with questions about the significance of various work-related expressions.
  • One participant emphasizes that the only significant expression is the work done on the ball, relating it to the conservation of angular momentum.
  • A request for clarification on engineering applications related to hydrodynamic fluid film bearings is introduced, indicating a shift in focus to practical applications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations regarding the inclusion of translational kinetic energy and the nature of the wheels' motion. While some agree on the importance of considering multiple forms of energy, others maintain different views on the specifics of the scenario, leaving the discussion unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge potential limitations in their assumptions about the wheels' motion and the definitions of energy forms involved. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations and mathematical considerations without reaching a consensus.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in the dynamics of rotating systems, energy conservation principles, and applications in engineering contexts may find this discussion relevant.

kmarinas86
Messages
974
Reaction score
1
Say I have three wheels. Their characteristics are the following:

WHEEL ONE
20 kg mass
10 cm radius
Accelerated from 0 to 10 m/s in one second

WHEEL TWO
10 kg mass
20 cm radius
Accelerated from 0 to 10 m/s in one second

WHEEL THREE
10 kg mass
10 cm radius
Accelerated from 0 to 20 m/s in one second

We assume all wheels are close enough to uniform mass density and that their moment of inertia is calculated according to (mass*radius^2), the case for a cylinder. The values above were specifically chosen so that the final angular momentum for all three wheels are the same. We now determine the rotational kinetic energy for all three wheels.

WHEEL ONE
20 kg mass
10 cm radius
Accelerated from 0 to 10 m/s in one second
Angular Momentum = 20 kg*m/s^2
Final Rotational Kinetic Energy = (1/2) * (20 kg * (10 cm)^2) * ((10 m/s)/(10 cm))^2 = 1000 Joules

WHEEL TWO
10 kg mass
20 cm radius
Accelerated from 0 to 10 m/s in one second
Angular Momentum = 20 kg*m/s^2
Final Rotational Kinetic Energy = (1/2) * (10 kg * (20 cm)^2) * ((10 m/s)/(20 cm))^2 = 500 Joules

WHEEL THREE
10 kg mass
10 cm radius
Accelerated from 0 to 20 m/s in one second
Angular Momentum = 20 kg*m/s^2
Final Rotational Kinetic Energy = (1/2) * (10 kg * (10 cm)^2) * ((20 m/s)/(10 cm))^2 = 2000 Joules

Consider that angular momentum was transferred from one wheel to the other. Apparently what I said suggests that the rotational kinetic energy does not follow a one-to-one relationship with angular momentum. What other forms of energy should be present in this scenario?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
> "What other forms of energy should be present in this scenario?"

Heat.

This is similar to linear momentum problems involving collisions between different masses. Linear momentum is conserved. But kinetic energy is either conserved (elastic collision) or reduced (inelastic), with the lost kinetic energy converted to heat.

p.s. FYI, units of angular momentum are kg*m^2 / s, as seen from the equation
(moment of inertia) x (angular speed)
= (kg*m^2) x (1/s)
 
Last edited:
How about regular kinetic energy? You say you set it up so they would have the same angular momentum at the end, that means that they're all traveling at different speeds. So (1/2) M V^2 where v is the center of mass.
 
Wow, I didn't even think of translational kinetic energy. I interpreted the description as the wheels were stationary but rotating, and the given speeds were just the speed at the wheels' rims. But yes, if he meant that the wheels were moving translationally as well as rotating, regular kinetic energy has to be accounted for too.
 
Redbelly98 said:
> "What other forms of energy should be present in this scenario?"

Heat.

This is similar to linear momentum problems involving collisions between different masses. Linear momentum is conserved. But kinetic energy is either conserved (elastic collision) or reduced (inelastic), with the lost kinetic energy converted to heat.

p.s. FYI, units of angular momentum are kg*m^2 / s, as seen from the equation
(moment of inertia) x (angular speed)
= (kg*m^2) x (1/s)

If I am a figure skater and I reduce my moment of inertia by a factor of two while spinning, I would have to spin twice as fast right? If so, my rotational kinetic energy would have to double. I presume that because of the so-called centripetal forces, that it would require work in order to reduce my moment of inertia. Is that basically why?
 
kmarinas86 said:
If I am a figure skater and I reduce my moment of inertia by a factor of two while spinning, I would have to spin twice as fast right?

Yes.
If so, my rotational kinetic energy would have to double. I presume that because of the so-called centripetal forces, that it would require work in order to reduce my moment of inertia. Is that basically why?

Yes, the muscles in your shoulders and elbows do work on your arms, increasing the kinetic energy.

To simplify the picture, think of a ball swinging around on a rope. Imagine the rope is being drawn in while the ball circles around; the ball's path is then an inward spiral. There is work done on the ball because the angle between rope tension and the ball's direction is not 90 degrees (as it is for purely circular motion), so the work formula:
W = F x D x cos(angle)
is nonzero.
 
Redbelly98 said:
Yes.Yes, the muscles in your shoulders and elbows do work on your arms, increasing the kinetic energy.

To simplify the picture, think of a ball swinging around on a rope. Imagine the rope is being drawn in while the ball circles around; the ball's path is then an inward spiral. There is work done on the ball because the angle between rope tension and the ball's direction is not 90 degrees (as it is for purely circular motion), so the work formula:
W = F x D x cos(angle)
is nonzero.

Ok. Then what is:
1) The significance, if any, of F x D?
2) The significance, if any, of F x D minus the work done on the ball?
3) The significance, if any, of F x D x sin(angle)?
4) The significance, if any, of F x D x sin(angle) plus the work done on the ball?
 
Last edited:
Redbelly98 said:
Wow, I didn't even think of translational kinetic energy. I interpreted the description as the wheels were stationary but rotating, and the given speeds were just the speed at the wheels' rims. But yes, if he meant that the wheels were moving translationally as well as rotating, regular kinetic energy has to be accounted for too.

I only meant free-spinning wheels.
 
kmarinas86 said:
Ok. Then what is:
1) The significance, if any, of F x D?
2) The significance, if any, of F x D minus the work done on the ball?
3) The significance, if any, of F x D x sin(angle)?
4) The significance, if any, of F x D x sin(angle) plus the work done on the ball?

The only expression of significance is
F x D x cos(angle)
and this equals the work done on the ball when it travels a short distance D in its trajectory.

See the included figure. Pulling in on the rope results in a non-zero value for the cos(angle) factor, so that work is done on the ball. The work increases the kinetic energy, and thus also the velocity of the ball.

How much does the velocity increase by? By exactly enough so that angular momentum is conserved! :smile:
 

Attachments

  • BallOnRope_2008-04-22.gif
    BallOnRope_2008-04-22.gif
    10.2 KB · Views: 499
  • #10
application engineering in hydrodynamic fluid film bearings

Request to explain as to how to start on these subjects.

The bearing calculations, FEA, bearing design etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K