Am I right ?

Hi
An object is attached near the periphery of a bigger one and the
bigger object is rolling.
After some time the link between the two breaks and the smaller one
flies off tangentially.
I want to know whether in addition to its tangential translation will
the smaller object spin too ?
I think it should spin as it should inherit rotational motion which
it
experienced while being on-board the larger object. And that spin
rate
should be equal to the rate of roll of the larger object. The mass
center of the smaller obj however moves along the straight line
tangentially.
Am i right ?
Thanks and regards
RJ Khan
Reply to
RJKhan
Loading thread data ...
Yes, almost all of the time. The key word is breaks which implies force. It is possible the force that breaks the two objects apart also stops the rotation of the small object. This would be a rare accidental fluke. If this needs to happen all the time one would need to calculate the force to cause the two object to break apart and the point on the small object to apply the force so that the small object wouldn't spin. If you had used the words separated without external force, then you are right 100% of the time. There would be no force/ torque to stop the rotation.
Peter Nachtwey
Reply to
pnachtwey
Thanks a lot Actually, some one wants a reference for my point. I have looked into various resources books, internet etc but none talked about the spin. I will be grateful if anybody could refer me something addressing the exact detail of the problem.
Regards
RJ
Reply to
RJKhan
Is Newton's first law of motion good enough?.
Peter Nachtwey
Reply to
pnachtwey
I have hinted to 1st law of newton already in my statement. The problem is the detailed kinemetical descriptive example which lacks my statement. The person i am trying to say is of the view that the smaller body should plainly translate. He might be satisfied if provided by some published matter corroborating my point.
RJ Khan
Reply to
RJKhan
...
I find little satisfaction in convincing a fool to accept my opinion. If he doesn't believe in the conservation of angular momentum, what more is there to demonstrate?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Avins
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
Right!
Atleast THIS conerstation will do
By the way plz dont mind me insisting
Best regards
Reply to
RJKhan
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF= =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF
The little object will have energy stored in it in the form of kinetic energy (one half times mass times translational velocity squared) because it is moving relative to the surface it is on. It will also have energy in the form of rotational energy (one half times mass moment of inertial times rotational speed squared - rotational speed is measured in radians per second), and it may also have energy in the form of potential energy (equal to mass times height times gravitational constant).
There is also heat energy and chemical energy stored in the little object but it won't matter here. You can find all of this in a Dynamics text or a Physics text. This would fall into the category of conservation of energy. It's probably in the section which explains impact.
Reply to
Andy

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.