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:
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top