Solving Motor Rotation: 0 to 1800rpm in 0.49s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fahraynk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motor Rotation
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
3 replies · 2K views
fahraynk
Messages
185
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


The rotor of an electric motor weighs 10 pounds and is 4 inches in diameter. What is the length of time required for the motor speed to increase from 0 to 1800rpm, assuming a constant electrical torque of 20 in-lb and zero external load during this period? Assume the rotor is a homogeneous cylinder.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Moment of inertia (I) of cylinder according to google is $$I=1/2 MR^2 = 1/2*10*2^2=20\\\\\
1800 rpm = \frac{1800}{60} \frac{rotations}{second} * \frac{2\pi rads}{rotation} = 188.5\\\\
20*188.5=20t\\\\
t=188.5$$
The book says the answer is 0.49 seconds. I got 188.5 seconds. Which is correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
0.49 s is correct.

Your overall approach is fine. But you are not giving enough consideration to the units of the various quantities. For example, the rotor weighs 10 pounds. But does M in the formula I = (1/2)MR2 represent weight? You should rework the problem plugging in units for each quantity in the calculation. If the units in your calculation do not reduce to seconds when you solve for t, you know you made an error.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fahraynk
TSny said:
0.49 s is correct.

Your overall approach is fine. But you are not giving enough consideration to the units of the various quantities. For example, the rotor weighs 10 pounds. But does M in the formula I = (1/2)MR2 represent weight? You should rework the problem plugging in units for each quantity in the calculation. If the units in your calculation do not reduce to seconds when you solve for t, you know you made an error.
A slightly different take on the error... Not sure which is more helpful.
fahraynk said:
20 in-lb
The lb there does not represent mass. What does it represent?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fahraynk
I got it. There were 2 problems. They gave me weight but I thought it was mass, so I had to divide by gravity. The other was they gave me torque in inch pounds, I had to convert it to foot pounds. Thank you both.