There is a uniform disc of mass $m$ and radius $r$ placed on a rough horizontal ground, A rod of same mass and length $r$ is pivoted to the centre of the disc at its end and is initially vertical, the rod being above the centre(unstable eq)...now the rod is disturbed slightly. Find the acceleration of the disc when the rod gas rotated by an angle $\theta$. The floor is rough enough to prevent slipping.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Can anyone give a try to this question ?
Log in to reply
Would you mind if I posted a problem on this one? I will also provide a solution there
Log in to reply
Yeah it would be very great sir
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
PV=nRTn=RTPV
Assume that the individual chambers are kept at their original temperatures even after the valve opens (this may or may not be allowed). After the valve opens, both sides are at the same pressure. The total number of moles of gas remain the same:
RTPPP0VP+RTQPQ04VP=RTPPFVP+RTQPF4VPPF=RTPVP+RTQ4VPRTPPP0VP+RTQPQ04VPPF=TP1+TQ4TPPP0+TQPQ04=3001+40043005×105+4002×1054=2.75×105
If this disagrees with the expected answer, I suppose it is because the assumption that the chambers are kept at their original temperatures is incorrect. But I don't know how to determine the final temperature otherwise. Maybe you can think of a way.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
you must be from Physics Stack exchange? $ $ is used there
Log in to reply
Nope bro just habit of typing that
I got the answer as a=512mr2 but don't whether it is correct or not. @Steven Chase what answer did you get ?
Log in to reply
Answer is likely very complex as said by my friend . between can anyone try this question and tell me why hinge will cause horizontal velocity component to be zero?? And does hinge always cause the horizontal component velocity to get zero ?? @Steven Chase sir can u check {https://goiit.com/uploads/default/original/3X/e/8/e8c02dac9e872d37113e90bd480c1119829ba456.jpg}
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase sir pls aware me when u post the problem sir , also pls check the question I posted before pls sir .
Log in to reply
https://brilliant.org/problems/rod-disk-combo-dynamics/
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase Sir can u pls check this one too :, {https://goiit.com/uploads/default/original/3X/e/8/e8c02dac9e872d37113e90bd480c1119829ba456.jpg}
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
mg21=21(31mL2)ω2g=31L2ω2ω=L23g=43g=23g=843g
If we assume that e=1 means that the kinetic energy of the rod is the same before and after the collision, this is also the angular speed after the collision.
Log in to reply
@Steven Chase sir , the answer given for this problem is 3root3/8 option A.. My doubt is can we say the horizontal component of velocity at the moment of the strike , will get reduced to zero , due to hinge reaction sir ?? , then we can get the option A easily. And does hinge always cause the horizontal component velocity to get zero ??
ButLog in to reply
u is a unit vector perpendicular to the rod.
At that particular angle, the horizontal velocity of the rod end cannot be zero without the vertical velocity of the rod end also being zero. Supposevx=Lωuxvy=Lωuyux=0uy=0
If the angular speed is non-zero, and the rod is not purely horizontal, the x-component of the rod end's velocity cannot be zero. Have I misunderstood what you said?
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
v1 and v2 are stated as being relative to the the large block, their magnitudes should be equal. If instead, v1 and v2 were given as being relative to the observer, the relationship would be v1−v0=v2.
I agree with you. BecauseLog in to reply
@Azimuddin Sheikh, which standard you are, 11 or 12 ? And also, in which branch of fitjee are you studying ?
Log in to reply
My solution resulted in a coupled set of differential equations, with no particularly simple solution. I'm going to derive it again to check my work, and then post a problem on it.