What is the angular velocity of a rolling disc after displacement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rishavutkarsh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rolling
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a disc of radius r and mass m rolling without slipping, with a force acting on its top point. The original poster seeks to determine the angular velocity of the disc after its center has been displaced a distance x, utilizing concepts from energy conservation and moment of inertia.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of energy conservation and the relationship between force and distance in the context of work done. Questions arise regarding the role of friction and the implications of the force acting at the top of the disc.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the equations of motion and the implications of the forces acting on the disc. There is ongoing exploration of why energy conservation led to an incorrect answer for the original poster, with suggestions to consider the distance over which the force acts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that friction is present but does not do work during rolling. There is a discussion about the distance over which the force must act to generate the correct kinetic energy, indicating a need for clarity on the relationship between the applied force and the displacement.

Rishavutkarsh
Messages
70
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A force(Fi) is acting on the top point of a disc of radius r and mass m. The disc is rolling without slipping. Angular velocity of disc after center has been displaced distance x is?[/B]

Homework Equations


Energy conservation; Moment of inertia of disc (MR^2)/2

The Attempt at a Solution



By energy conservation
Fx=1/2*Mr^2/2*w^2+1/2mv^2
also v=rw (Rolling)[/B]
What am I missing? Any help appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It look like you are using work done = mechanical energy gained
That should work. Now go ahead and solve for angular velocity.
 
Beaten to it by NO!
 
Rishavutkarsh said:
Fx=1/2*Mr^2/2*w^2+1/2mv^2
also v=rw (Rolling)

What am I missing? Any help appreciated.
For Fx to be the work done, what must the relationship between the force F and the distance x be? Is that their relationship in this question?
 
NascentOxygen said:
It look like you are using work done = mechanical energy gained
That should work. Now go ahead and solve for angular velocity.
Well I thought so too but that didn't really work out, I got the wrong answer. The answer is root 2 times my answer.
haruspex said:
For Fx to be the work done, what must the relationship between the force F and the distance x be? Is that their relationship in this question?
They should be in the same direction and yes they are.
 
Rishavutkarsh said:
Well I thought so too but that didn't really work out, I got the wrong answer. The answer is root 2 times my answer.

They should be in the same direction and yes they are.

Is F the only force acting on the disc?
 
PeroK said:
Is F the only force acting on the disc?
No, friction must be acting too since it's rolling but it won't do any work during rolling.
 
Rishavutkarsh said:
No, friction must be acting too since it's rolling but it won't do any work during rolling.

Even so, you could take a look at the equations of motion involving both F and the frictional force.
 
F-fr=ma
FR+frR=I*(alpha)
Using this I got the answer... Hurray! But I am still curious to know why did energy conservation give me wrong answer.
 
  • #10
Rishavutkarsh said:
F-fr=ma
FR+frR=I*(alpha)
Using this I got the answer... Hurray! But I am still curious to know why did energy conservation give me wrong answer.

First, work out over what distance F would have to act to generate the correct KE. Then, see whether you can explain why F does indeed act over that distance.
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
First, work out over what distance F would have to act to generate the correct KE. Then, see whether you can explain why F does indeed act over that distance.
2x? Well yeah that gives me the answer but how does F 'indeed act over that distance'? A hint would help, I can't think of anything.
 
  • #12
Rishavutkarsh said:
2x? Well yeah that gives me the answer but how does F 'indeed act over that distance'? A hint would help, I can't think of anything.

Perhaps a couple of ways to look at it:

If you're applying a force to something that's moving, then the work done by the force in time ##dt## is ##Fvdt##. The top of the disk is moving twice as fast as the centre of mass of the disk. So, the work done by a force applied at the top of the disc is ##F2vdt## (where v is the velocity of the centre of mass).

Alternatively, if you think of the force as a continuous series of impulses ##Fdt## (applied at the top of the disk), you see the same result. Each impulse acts over the same time, but twice the distance, that a similar impulse at the centre of the disk would do.

If you redo your problem with the force at the centre of the disc, you can use work-energy directly over the distance x. But, at the top of the disc, the force acts through a distance of 2x.

It's similar to why the friction force does no work, as the bottom of the disc is stationary when in contact with the ground.
 
  • #13
Rishavutkarsh said:
They should be in the same direction and yes they are.
Yes, but there's a bit more to it than that, as PeroK notes, x must be the distance the force acts over:
PeroK said:
work out over what distance F would have to act to generate the correct KE

Rishavutkarsh said:
how does F 'indeed act over that distance'?
Suppose you push on a lever with force F, and you make the lever (at the point where you push it) move distance x. The work you have done is Fx. Had you applied the force twice as far from the fulcrum point the force needed would only have been F/2, but you would have needed to advance the point of application 2x in order to achieve the same movement of the lever.
 
  • #14
Thank you both of you for helping me out I was able to think it as the point above moving twice as fast as center but the analogy of lever and the ground being stationary so that friction does no work helped me understand much more clearly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K