Translational and Rotational energy in rigid bodies

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the total kinetic energy of a rigid body, specifically a flat disk, that is both translating and rotating. The initial confusion arises from the calculation showing that the total kinetic energy appears to exceed the sum of translational and rotational energies due to an additional term. Upon further analysis, it is clarified that this extra term, which involves integrating over the disk, evaluates to zero, thus aligning with the expected relationship between the total kinetic energy and its components. The conversation emphasizes the importance of using integrals for continuous bodies instead of sums for accurate calculations. Ultimately, the clarification resolves the initial misunderstanding regarding the kinetic energy components.
Zamorak
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have some sort of rigid body, a solid sphere let's say. For simplicity's sake let's assume that the sphere can only rotate about a single arbitrary axis through the center of mass. If the center of mass of the sphere is traveling with a constant velocity (with respect to some arbitrary reference frame) and the sphere also has a non-zero constant angular velocity about a single axis, will the total kinetic energy of the sphere be equal to the sum of the Rotational and Translational kinetic energy? Intuitively, I feel like the answer should be yes, but when I try to verify my intuition, the math seems to suggest otherwise.

Etotal =1/2 ∑miv2i

In the reference frame of the center of mass, the velocity of any particle is defined by its angular velocity and the distance from center of mass.

v'i = rw(cosΘ)ey - rw(sinΘ)ex

If the center of mass if moving with velocity v with respect to the reference frame we are observing the sphere at then we can apply a simple Galilean transformation to find an expression for vi

v = aey + bex

vi = (rw(cosΘ) + a)ey + (b - rw(sinΘ))ex
v2i = (v'i)2 + v2 +2v'i ⋅v

If I plug this back into the expression for the total kinetic energy, I get something odd.

Etotal = 1/2∑mi(v'i)2 + 1/2∑miv2 + ∑miv'i ⋅v

Etotal = Erotational + Etranslational + ∑miv'i ⋅v

I'm not sure if I didn't properly define translational and rotational energy in this case, but the above equation seems to imply that the total kinetic energy is more than the sum of the translational and rotational kinetic energy. I'm a little confused about mechanics concerned rotation right now, so any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

EDIT: Change "sphere" to flat disk, I wanted to work in 2 dimensions for simplicity's sake
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
At first, you should not that(using standard spherical coordinates and taking the centre of mass to be at the centre of the sphere) for a particle at (r,\theta,\varphi), v_i'=r\omega \sin\theta(\cos\varphi \hat x+\sin\varphi \hat y).
The next point is, those sums should be replaced by integrals for actual calculations because we're dealing with a continuum here. But as you can see, you have, in v_i', sine and cosine of \varphi which gives zero when integrated from 0 \ to \ 2\pi. So that extra term is actually zero.
 
Ah, my bad, I should have specified a flat disk instead of a sphere, but I get your point. The reason I didn't start with integral in the first place was to show that there was that I didn't intend to calculate the energies, but now that you mention it if I consider the extra term as an integral it does work out.

∑miv'i⋅v
= ∑r(w)(acosΘ - bsinΘ)mi

dm = krdΘdr
∑miv'i⋅v

Integrate from 0 to R and 0 to 2π
=wk∫∫r2(acosθ - bsinΘ)dΘdr
=wk∫r2(b - b)dr
=0

I'm honestly not too familiar with using integrals in these situations, but if that's right then everything makes sense, thanks for the reply.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top