Torque and rotational kinetic energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the calculation of torque and rotational kinetic energy for a rock attached to a string. The torque required was calculated using τ=Iα, yielding 2.8 Nm, while the rotational kinetic energy formula E_k=1/2 Iω^2 gave a result of 177 Nm. The discrepancy arises because torque and kinetic energy, despite sharing units, represent different physical concepts; torque is not a measure of energy. It was clarified that while the rotational kinetic energy formula can be used to determine the energy of the system, it does not equate to the torque applied during acceleration. The relationship between kinetic energy and angular momentum was also discussed, confirming that the energy used to bring the rock to its current rotation can be calculated accurately.
BERNIE649
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
This is problem from a textbook whose solution I don't understand.

A small rock of mass 0.5kg is attached to a 1.5m string, then it is whirled for 5 seconds until it achieves a near horizontal orbit at 120 rpm. What is the torque required?

I used the equation : τ=Iα (moment of inertia x angular acceleration) giving an answer of 2.8 Nm or Joules. This is the book's answer.

My question is, why I don't get the same answer with the formula for rotational kinetic energy
E_k=1/2 Iω^2 which gives 177 Nm.

Both formulas have the same units of Nm or energy. Why the energy used to impart the motion is not the same as the kinetic energy stored in the moving mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the point of view of units, both torque and kinetic energic carry the Nm tag. However, their meanings are vastly different; that´s why an energy is given in Joules and a torque in Nm. You've just compared apples to oranges
 
Torque isn't exactly a measure of energy. While the two quantities have the same dimensions, they aren't obtained in the same way: radians are treated as dimensionless, so ω2 has dimensions [T]-2, which happens to coincide with the dimensions of dω/dt = α

To illustrate the difference, consider a wheel spinning at a constant rate. The rotational kinetic energy is non-zero, but there is no torque on the wheel (so the torque is zero).
 
Thank you Cauchyam and Gordianus for your help.

I still have some questions. In the problem in question supposing the mass continues swinging around with no friction. If I want to calculate its energy, is it correct to apply the rotational kinetic energy formula, and would also be valid to say that that was the same amount of energy used to bring it from rest to its current rotation?
 
If I want to calculate its energy, is it correct to apply the rotational kinetic energy formula
Yes
and would also be valid to say that that was the same amount of energy used to bring it from rest to its current rotation?
Correct.

And here you can see the relation between kinetic energy and angular momentum: The 2.8Nm were applied while the rock made 5 rotations* with a total angle of 10pi. And 2.8Nm*10pi=88J. I get the same value for the kinetic energy.

* 0/s at t=0, 2/s at t=5s, with constant acceleration, gives 5 rotations
 
Thank you mfb.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top