Which one will have greater kinetic energy.

AI Thread Summary
In the discussion about kinetic energy, it is established that a particle of mass 'm' revolving in a circular path has a different kinetic energy compared to a sphere of the same mass under similar conditions. The kinetic energy of the sphere includes both linear and rotational components, expressed as ½mv² + ½Ic.o.m.ω². This indicates that the sphere's kinetic energy will generally be greater than that of the particle, unless the sphere's angular velocity (ω) is zero, meaning it does not rotate. Therefore, the rotational aspect of the sphere contributes significantly to its overall kinetic energy. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of considering both linear and rotational motion in kinetic energy calculations.
vkash
Messages
316
Reaction score
1
case 1: a particle of mass 'm' Kg is revolving in a circular path of radius 'r'.
case 2: A sphere of mass 'm' Kg is revolving in a circular path of radius 'r' . string is connected to it's centre of mass.

which one will have greater kinetic energy.
It's not home work question i ask this because recently it came in my mind.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited by a moderator:
tiny-tim said:
hi vkash! :smile:

https://www.physicsforums.com/library.php?do=view_item&itemid=132" = linear kinetic energy + rotational kinetic energy

= ½mv2 + ½Ic.o.m.ω2​

so the KE of the sphere will be greater, unless ω = 0,

ie unless the sphere always faces the same direction :wink:
thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Can only one help me build prototype or simulation
Replies
6
Views
1K
B Colliding balls: Conservation of momentum and changes in kinetic energy?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Work Done/Energy Transferred in One Dimensional Collision
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Change of coordinates in a potential energy field
Replies
2
Views
1K
Formulating the kinetic energy of an object - helical motion
Replies
9
Views
3K
Binding energy or Kinetic energy?
Replies
3
Views
10K
Is the rotational KE of a rigid body considered as internal energy?
Replies
30
Views
3K
How to define kinetic energy of a compound system
Replies
1
Views
1K
Confusion about tidal locking and rotational kinetic energy
Replies
3
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top