Velocity of vertices of a free rhombus

  • Thread starter Thread starter guv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Velocity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the dynamics of a free rhombus in the center of mass (CM) frame, specifically analyzing the velocities of its vertices A, B, C, and D after an impulse. It establishes that vertex A moves towards the CM at a speed of ##3j/4m##, while vertices B and C move away at speed ##j/m##. The conversation highlights the constraints of the system, noting that momentum is zero in the CM frame and that energy conservation must be considered, leading to the conclusion that the system is not under-constrained. The participants suggest simplifying the problem by reducing it to a single rod with mass constraints along the X and Y axes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of center of mass (CM) frame dynamics
  • Familiarity with impulse and momentum concepts
  • Knowledge of energy conservation in mechanical systems
  • Basic principles of rigid body motion and constraints
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of impulse in rigid body dynamics
  • Learn about the conservation of momentum in multi-body systems
  • Explore the mathematical formulation of energy conservation in mechanics
  • Investigate the effects of massless rods in dynamic systems
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physicists, mechanical engineers, and students studying dynamics, particularly those interested in the behavior of rigid bodies and impulse mechanics.

guv
Messages
122
Reaction score
22
Homework Statement
Suppose we have a rhombus made of 4 point masses ##m## and massless rigid rod at length ##l##. It's placed on a horizontal frictionless table initially at rest. Let a corner be A and the angle at the corner ##\theta## initially.

Then a sudden impulse ##j## is applied symmetrically on the rhombus at the corner A such that A moves along the direction of the impulse. Find the velocities of all the corners.
Relevant Equations
##v_{CM} = \frac{j}{4m}##
Let D be the opposite corner. In the CM frame, A moves towards CM, D moves towards CM as well. The other two corners (let them be B and C) moves away from the corner at ##v##. Then
##v_A \cos \theta/2 = v \sin \theta/2##

##v_{CM} = \frac{j}{4m}##

This is where it seems like the problem is under-constrained, it is not possible to determine individual velocities unless one velocity is specified. Let me know if I didn't explain this well enough or if I missed anything in solving this problem.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
Just an idea, not sure if it's correct though. Just after the impulse, in the CM frame the point A initially moves at speed ##3j/4m## whilst all the other vertices initially move in the opposite direction at speed ##j/m##.

Since the momentum is zero in the CM frame, points B & C have equal vertical speed but can have no horizontal speed, whilst points A & D equal horizontal speed but can have no vertical speed, so tension forces in the rods act so as to quickly fulfil this condition.

But the energy of the system remains constant during this process, so the sum ##mv^2 + mv_A^2## equals the initial kinetic energy in terms of ##j## and ##m##. And this would provide the additional constraint.

Do you see any problems with this?
 
It can't be underconstrained since one could set it up as an experiment.
I don't see how energy can be used since we don't know how much energy was injected.
You can simplify it by shifting to the CM frame, so you have equal and opposite impulses at A and D. Further, reduce it to a single rod with masses constrained to move along the X and Y axes.
Consider the impulse along the rod and write separate impulse equations for the two masses.
 
Last edited:
I think the velocity component equation is a statement of impulse relationship as well.
 
guv said:
I think the velocity component equation is a statement of impulse relationship as well.
There is a relationship between the impulse components other than as derivable from the velocity relationship.
The rods are massless. Consider the impulsive torque on one.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K