Angular acceleration, velocity, momentum of a door?

In summary: I can't find that.e) Combining angular acceleration and linear acceleration considerations, findthe tangential force Fh supplied by the hinges as a function of d, the distancebetween the hinges and the point of application of the mother-in-law force(d was l=2 in part a) and b), and l in part c); now use a general d). Don’tput in explicit numbers, just find the equation.f) For which d do the hinges not need to provide any tangential force?The Attempt at a Solution Can someone check on my solutions, All answers appreciated![/B]a)τ= l/
  • #71
coffeemanja said:
I got 0.795 s
Good, if a little inaccurate. (But why does everyone insist on decimals? What's wrong with ##\pi/4##?
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
haruspex said:
Good, if a little inaccurate. (But why does everyone insist on decimals? What's wrong with ##\pi/4##?
Wait... It's pi/2. I do not know, may be because we are used to use SI units..
 
  • #73
coffeemanja said:
Wait... It's pi/2. I do not know, may be because we are used to use SI units..
did you use this equation Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2 ?
 
  • #74
Haveagoodday said:
did you use this equation Θf=Θi+ωi*t+0.5αt^2 ?
Yes!
 
  • #75
coffeemanja said:
Yes!
what are the values you put in?
 
  • #76
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
 
  • #77
Haveagoodday said:
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
I assume you are just looking for a yes/no answer. There's a risk your question might be interpreted as a request for a solution to be posted.
 
  • #78
Haveagoodday said:
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
I think somebody posted an answer for part (e).

I don't know if that counts as a solution.
 
  • #79
Haveagoodday said:
Have somebody come to a solution for e)?
Here's a starting point:

F- Fh = M* a ("h" being in a subscript of F, and "a" being "a" of centre of mass)

I could post whole my work, but I believe It's better for you that you figure it out yourself. But this starting point should be more than enough.
Let me know the result you get in e) and thereby f)
 
  • #80
e) Fh=F(1-3d/(2L))
f) 2L/3
 
  • #81
How did you get C) 0.795 s or pi/4
 
  • #83
jimjames said:
How did you get C) 0.795 s or pi/4
As I said, 0.795 is rather inaccurate.
 
  • #84
haruspex said:
As I said, 0.795 is rather inaccurate.
It is, but where we study they insist on decimal numbers. It is inaccurate, but the main reason why they do it is so we can use our knowledge about significant digits. You'd be surprised over how many people make silly mistakes on significant digits.
 
  • #85
StavangerFinest said:
It is, but where we study they insist on decimal numbers. It is inaccurate, but the main reason why they do it is so we can use our knowledge about significant digits. You'd be surprised over how many people make silly mistakes on significant digits.
No, it's more inaccurate than it should be for a three digit decimal. Calculate pi/4.
 
  • #86
haruspex said:
No, it's more inaccurate than it should be for a three digit decimal. Calculate pi/4.
Oh yeah... 0,785s...Didn't notice that they had nine instead...Sorry, my bad
 
  • #87
Read the book from page 308 to 314, you will understand the physics not just for one question but for all related questions.
 
  • #88
Bambisu said:
Read the book from page 308 to 314, you will understand the physics not just for one question but for all related questions.
The thread is two years old. I doubt StavangerFinest is still interested.
 
  • #89
Heia Anders
 
Back
Top