Why is the result different in Method 2 for the rotating rod experiment?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a rotating rod experiment where two methods are used to analyze the motion of rings moving outward. The original poster compares results from two approaches, focusing on angular momentum conservation and energy conservation principles.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive velocities using two different methods, questioning the discrepancies in results. Some participants raise concerns about the validity of the second method, particularly regarding the changing angular velocity and missing units in the equations. Others suggest that the reference frame's dynamics complicate the analysis.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively questioning the assumptions made in the second method and discussing the implications of using a non-inertial reference frame. There is a focus on clarifying the equations used and the need for proper unit representation. Some guidance has been offered regarding the interpretation of forces in different reference frames.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of missing units and the need for clearer explanations of the equations presented. The discussion highlights the importance of context in understanding the variables involved, particularly with respect to the initial conditions and the nature of the forces acting on the system.

Divya
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
A rigid horizontal smooth rod $AB$ of mass $0.75 kg$ and length $40 cm$ can rotate freely about a fixed vertical axis through its mid point $O$. Two rings each of mass $1 Kg$ are initially at rest at a distance of $10 cm$ from $O$ on the either side of the rod.The rod is set in rotation with an angular velocity of $30$ radians per second. Find the velocity of each ring along the length of the rod in m/s when they reach the ends of the rod.
Relevant Equations
(I am new to this forum, I don't know what to write in 'Relevant Equations' field)
Method 1: Simply conserving angular momentum about the the fixed vertical axis and conserving energy gives ##v=3##, which is correct according to my book.

Method 2: Conserving angular momentum when the two rings reach distance ##x## from the centre gives
##(0.01+2x^2) \omega =0.9##
Also in the rod's frame ##a=v dv/dx =\omega ^2 x## (where a and v radial acceleration and velocities).
So, ##v^2/2=\int_{0.1}^{0.2} \frac {0.9xdx} {(0.01+2x^2)^2}=5##.
So, ##v=\sqrt{10}##.
What is wrong in second method?

Edit: Everything is in SI unit
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The angular velocity of the rod decreases as the rings move outwards. The formula you used in the second method doesn't work with a reference frame that changes its angular velocity.

There are a lot of units missing.
 
Why? The fictitious forces are centrifugal, coriolis and azimuthal. Here only centrifugal force is in radial direction. So, the equation should be correct.
 
mfb said:
The angular velocity of the rod decreases as the rings move outwards. The formula you used in the second method doesn't work with a reference frame that changes its angular velocity.

There are a lot of units missing.
Sorry, everything is in SI unit.
 
These are the forces in a reference frame where the angular velocity stays the same. I guess you could try to do that with the initial angular velocity but it just makes things needlessly complicated.
Divya said:
Sorry, everything is in SI unit.
And it should be added to the quantities that have units. It's a bad habit to not do that, especially combined with equations where quantities are not introduced first. 0.01 is what? Sure, it's possible to guess it from context, but it's just unnecessary. Don't let others guess.
 
mfb said:
These are the forces in a reference frame where the angular velocity stays the same. I guess you could try to do that with the initial angular velocity but it just makes things needlessly complicated.And it should be added to the quantities that have units. It's a bad habit to not do that, especially combined with equations where quantities are not introduced first. 0.01 is what? Sure, it's possible to guess it from context, but it's just unnecessary. Don't let others guess.
As far I know, in case of non-uniformly rotating frame, everything is same except that we also need to add azimuthal force. And here azimuthal force is not in radial direction.
 
Divya said:
##(0.01+2x^2) \omega =0.9##
Plugging in numbers straight away and with no text explanation makes it hard to follow the reasoning. Please explain the derivation of this equation. I was expecting ##x^2\omega=x_0^2\omega_0##.
 
@haruspex, I have added the explanation of this equation in this attachment.
 

Attachments

  • 16021384310777060270523105675145.jpg
    16021384310777060270523105675145.jpg
    30 KB · Views: 197
Divya said:
@haruspex, I have added the explanation of this equation in this attachment.
Ok, thanks.
Your error is that you forgot to square the 0.9.
 
  • #10
haruspex said:
Ok, thanks.
Your error is that you forgot to square the 0.9.
I don't think so.
 
  • #11
Divya said:
##(0.01+2x^2) \omega =0.9##
So, ##v^2/2=\int_{0.1}^{0.2} \frac {0.9xdx} {(0.01+2x^2)^2}=5##.
## \omega =\frac {0.9}{0.01+2x^2}##
## \omega ^2=\frac {0.9^2}{(0.01+2x^2)^2}##
 
  • #12
Thank you very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K