Two rotating coaxial drums and sand transfering between them (Kleppner)

yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
Homework Statement
A drum of mass ##M_A## and radius ##a## rotates freely with initial angular speed ##\omega _0##. A second drum of radius ##b>a## and mass ##M_B## is mounted on the same axis, although it is free to rotate. A thin layer of sand ##M_s## is evenly distributed on the inner surface of the smaller drum (drum ##A##). At ##t=0## small perforations in the inner drum are opened, and sand starts to fly out at a rate ##\dfrac{dM}{dt}=\lambda## and sticks to the outer drum. Find subsequent angular velocities of the two drums. Ignore the transit time of the sand

Kleppner, Problem 7.2
Relevant Equations
N/A
The solution is simple by noting that the total angular momentum of the system is constant. (Though I overlooked this)

Instead, I went ahead analyzing the individual angular momentum of both drums.

Let ##L_a## and ##L_b## be the angular momentum respectively. ##M_a##, ##M_b## be the instantaneous mass (including sand), ##M_{0a}##, ##M_{0b}## be initial mass.

Then $$L_a(t) = M_a a^2 \omega_a(t)$$ and $$L_a(t +\Delta t)= (M_a- \Delta m) a^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t) + \Delta m a^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t) = (M_a) a^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t)$$

$$\Delta L_a = M_a a^2 (\omega_a(t + \Delta t) - \omega_a(t))$$
$$\frac{\Delta L_a}{\Delta t} = M_a a^2 \frac{\omega_a(t + \Delta t) - \omega_a(t)}{\Delta t}$$

Taking the limit, $$\frac{d L_a}{dt} = M_a a^2 \frac{d \omega_a}{dt}$$

But since there is no net torque, $$ \frac{d \omega_a}{dt} = \frac{d L_a}{dt} = 0$$, thus ##\omega_a## is constant.

This fits our prediction, but is this proof correct?

Next, we do the same for drum B, we get

$$L_b(t) = M_b b^2 \omega_b(t) + \Delta m a^2 \omega_a$$

$$L_b(t +\Delta t)= (M_b + \Delta m) b^2 (\omega_b(t) + \delta \omega_b)$$

Can I write ##\omega_b## instead of ##\omega_b(t)##?

Ignoring second order terms,

$$\Delta L_b = b^2 M_b \Delta \omega_b + \Delta m (b^2 \omega_b - a^2 \omega_a)$$
$$\frac{\Delta L_b}{\Delta t}= b^2 M_b \frac{\Delta \omega_b}{\Delta t} + \frac{\Delta m}{\Delta t} (b^2 \omega_b - a^2 \omega_a)$$
Taking the limits,
$$\frac{d L_b}{d t}= b^2 M_b \frac{d \omega_b}{d t} + \frac{d m}{d t} (b^2 \omega_b - a^2 \omega_a)$$

Since $$L_b=I \omega_b= M_b b^2 \omega_b$$, I thought of solving the differential equation:

$$d L_b= (b^2 M_b \frac{d \omega_b}{d t} + \frac{d m}{d t} (b^2 \omega_b - a^2 \omega_a))dt$$

But ##M_b=M_0b + \lambda b t##

$$d L_b= (b^2 (M_b=M_{0b} + \lambda b t)\frac{d \omega_b}{d t} + \lambda (b^2 \omega_b - a^2 \omega_a))dt$$

How should I go about integrating this equation?

Thanks in advance!
 
on Phys.org
yucheng said:
.
$$L_a(t +\Delta t)= (M_a- \Delta m) a^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t) + \Delta m a^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t) = (M_a) a^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t)$$Thanks in advance!
1. Why would ##\omega_a## change?
2. Why after subtracting ##\Delta ma^2 \omega_a(t + \Delta t)## do you add it on again?
You don't need the ##\Delta t## in there; that would be a second order small quantity.
I assume ##\Delta m= \lambda\Delta t##.
 
@haruspex Oops, ##\omega_a(t+\Delta t)## is supposed to be a function of time.

for 2. I was thinking, angular momentum does not change, so... I add that in?

Or, does this angular momentum analysis not work, because I should be considering drum a and drum b at once, not separately?
 
yucheng said:
for 2. I was thinking, angular momentum does not change, so... I add that in?
It's losing mass, but its angular momentum doesn't change? Is it going faster?!
 
haruspex said:
It's losing mass, but its angular momentum doesn't change? Is it going faster?!
Yes it's going faster, Oh, a contradiction!
 
yucheng said:
Oh, a contradiction!
No contradiction, it just loses angular momentum.
yucheng said:
I should be considering drum a and drum b at once, not separately?
Yes, the angular momentum of the combined system is conserved.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: yucheng
haruspex said:
No contradiction, it just loses angular momentum.
I mean, if I were to assume my original equation holds, then I can derive a contradiction? Since in my original equation I assumes that angular momentum does not change. While in fact, my conclusion that angular velocity does not change, says it does?
 
yucheng said:
I mean, if I were to assume my original equation holds, then I can derive a contradiction? Since in my original equation I assumes that angular momentum does not change. While in fact, my conclusion that angular velocity does not change, says it does?
Ok.
Did you see my edit to post #6?
 
Yep, thanks!
haruspex said:
Ok.
Did you see my edit to post #6?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K