Total KE = Sum of Translational & Rotational KE: Proving the Equation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between total kinetic energy, translational kinetic energy, and rotational kinetic energy, particularly in the context of rigid bodies and rolling motion. Participants explore the derivation and implications of the equations governing these forms of energy.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the derivation of kinetic energy equations and question how the kinetic energy of a rolling object can be viewed as a sum of translational and rotational components. Some express confusion regarding the conditions under which this relationship holds, particularly in non-frictionless scenarios.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various perspectives on the conservation of energy principle as a proof for the relationship between different forms of kinetic energy. Some participants provide insights into the mathematical treatment of the problem, while others express uncertainty about specific assumptions and the implications of reference frames.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of specific scenarios, such as a ball rolling down a ramp, and the impact of friction on energy transformations. Participants also note the importance of considering the center of mass in their analyses.

Afo
Messages
17
Reaction score
5
Homework Statement
Why is total kinetic energy always equal to the sum of rotational and translational kinetic energies?
Relevant Equations
1/2 I W^2
KE = 1/2 m v^2 + 1/2 I W^2
Why is the total energy energy equal to the sum of translational kinetic energy and rotational kinetic energy? I understand the derivation KE = 1/2 I w^2 for a rigid object rotating around an axis:

sum 0.5 * m_n * (v_T)^2 = sum 0.5 * m_n * (wr_n)^2 = 0.5 * w^2 * sum m_n r_n^2 = 0.5 * I * w^2

But I don't understand how the KE of a rolling without slipping object is simply the addition of them. I think the proof is pretty complicated since the tangential velocity and translational velocity makes an angle which varies.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
From an arithmetic point of view, translational KE, rotational KE and PE are what's used for simple kinematics exercises.

Conservation of Energy principle is the "proof".

Example of a ball coming down a ramp:
1) for a non-frictionless interaction, the PE at the top of the ramp is equal to the translational KE at the bottom ; translational only, since there is no rotation.
2) for a rolling ball, the PE at the top of the ramp is equal to the added KE's at the bottom.

The ball in the second example will not have as high a translational velocity as the first, when they hit the bottom of the ramp, but will of course have a higher rotational velocity.

My apologies if this is too simplistic an explanation.
 
Write the total kinetic energy as an integral over the mass distribution. Then split the position vector into the center of mass vector and the displacement from the center of mass. Then start simplifying. The cross terms between the center of mass and displacement will cancel out and leave the center of mass translational energy and the rotational energy relative to the center of mass.

It is important that the rotational energy is relative to the center of mass or the statement is not necessarily true.
hmmm27 said:
Conservation of Energy principle is the "proof".
No, it is not.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
Afo said:
Homework Statement:: Why is total kinetic energy always equal to the sum of rotational and translational kinetic energies?
Relevant Equations:: 1/2 I W^2
KE = 1/2 m v^2 + 1/2 I W^2

Why is the total energy energy equal to the sum of translational kinetic energy and rotational kinetic energy? I understand the derivation KE = 1/2 I w^2 for a rigid object rotating around an axis:

sum 0.5 * m_n * (v_T)^2 = sum 0.5 * m_n * (wr_n)^2 = 0.5 * w^2 * sum m_n r_n^2 = 0.5 * I * w^2

But I don't understand how the KE of a rolling without slipping object is simply the addition of them. I think the proof is pretty complicated since the tangential velocity and translational velocity makes an angle which varies.
It's clearly true in the centre of mass frame. What happens when you add the same linear velocity to every point mass? That transforms to a reference frame where the centre of mass has that velocity.

Hint: using the definition of centre of mass should cause some terms in the equation to vanish.
 
Last edited:
Ok, thanks I got it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K