10

I was playing with a small ruler by repeatedly toppling it, see diagram below:

Toppling ruler

The ruler, standing $h$ tall and approximately a regular bar, is prevented from free-rotating by a fixed ridge (a book, usually) in point $O$ and then allowed to topple until it hits the $xz$-plane. My desk and the ruler both have quite smooth, hard surfaces and I can't help noticing that after impact the ruler slides along the surface in the $x$-direction for a bit until it is halted by friction.

This suggests the ruler had momentum in the $x$-direction, after impact with the desk's surface. But I can't work out where it comes from. Is some of the rotational kinetic energy the ruler acquired during toppling converted to translational kinetic energy on impact? If so, how?

The forces acting on the centor of gravity of the ruler are shown in the right hand top corner of the diagram. Obviously it's the moment $\frac{Th}{2}$ that's causing rotation around $O$ and the equation of motion is:

$$\frac{Th}{2}=I\ddot{\theta}.$$

With:

$$T=mg\sin\theta.$$

And:

$$\ddot{\theta}=\omega\frac{\mathrm{d} \omega}{\mathrm{d} \theta}.$$

So:

$$\frac{mgh}{2}\sin\theta \mathrm{d}\theta=I\omega \mathrm{d}\omega.$$

Integrated between $0,0$ and $\frac{\pi}{2},\omega$, we get:

$$K=\frac{I\omega^2}{2}=\frac{mgh}{2}.$$

$\frac{mgh}{2}$ is of course simply the amount of potential energy that has been converted to kinetic energy by lowering the CoG from $h/2$ to $0$.

Now let's look at point $O$:

In point O.

In $O$, $mg\cos\theta$ has to be countered to prevent the ruler from moving radially (from $O$ to the CoG or vice versa).

Decomposing we get:

$$F_x=mg\cos\theta \sin\theta.$$

But at $\theta=\pi /2$, $F_x$ vanishes, so it can't be that force that's responsible for any horizontal motion.

Clearly I'm missing something here, but what is it?

ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
Gert
  • 35,289
  • 4
    While falling, isn't the center of mass moving to the right, thereby imparting it with momentum in the $x$-direction? That seems like your source. – HDE 226868 Nov 06 '15 at 17:18
  • 4
    Just because the force vanishes, doesn't mean it hasn't already accelerated the COM. – BowlOfRed Nov 06 '15 at 17:19
  • @BowlOfRed: Ah. So integrating $\vec{F_x}\vec{dx}$ would give me $K$ too? – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 17:24
  • The velocity of the CoG has no $x$ component on impact with the desk. – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 17:36
  • Why do you say that it has no x velocity? Does O provide a force to the right? Is that force countered by anything else? That force must cause an acceleration. – BowlOfRed Nov 06 '15 at 17:39
  • 3
    @Gert: wrong! The base of the ruler will already have started to move away from the ridge/book as the ruler approaches horizontal. In the last stages of it's fall the COM is no longer moving in a circular arc, so you cannot use this to argue the $x$ component of the velocity is zero. – John Rennie Nov 06 '15 at 17:39
  • @JohnRennie: can you prove this in an answer? It's simply not what I'm observing at all. Also using rectangular objects that then pivot around one corner: the pivot point doesn't move. – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 17:43
  • @BowlOfRed: look at the trajectory of the CoG: at impact $\vec{v}$ only has a $y$ component. And wouldn't my $K$ derivation have to be wrong if there's was a $v_x$ component? – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 17:45
  • @Gert, that trajectory is only possible if there is a force in the -x direction. In your stated problem, there is no such force. What will accelerate the COM to the left before impact? – BowlOfRed Nov 06 '15 at 17:48
  • @BowlOfRed: I stated that there is a fixed ridge to prevent free rotation (no horizontal movement of CoG). But I don't see how there can be a $v_x$ at impact. I don't see the pivot pot moving as the ruler topples. Try it yourself: gently topple a rectangular block and watch the pivot point. – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 17:52
  • The flaw in your reasoning above is that the magnitude of the force applied by the pivot is not $mg \cos \theta$. It would be if the center of mass was not accelerating in the radial direction; in this case, the force from the pivot would cancel the radial component of the force of gravity. But since the CM is moving in a circular arc, it is accelerating inwards, and so the force from the pivot need not cancel the radial component of the ruler's weight. – Michael Seifert Nov 06 '15 at 18:19
  • 3
    @Gert: Ha! Experiment trumps wild speculation from the theoreticians! :-) – John Rennie Nov 06 '15 at 18:23
  • @JohnRennie: experimental verification is always necessary but as this case shows, too simple experimentation can lead to a wild goose chase, as can wrong ab initio reasoning. I'm one of those who also got the 'ball on a smooth hemisphere' wrong, but NO MORE! – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 18:34
  • Isn't this the same question? – Mazura Nov 07 '15 at 05:32
  • @Mazura: well spotted. But the answers to this one are much better, there was something missing that's now been fully clarified. – Gert Nov 07 '15 at 14:34

2 Answers2

11

OK, since it's a quiet Friday evening in and since I'm allegedly an experimental scientist I videoed my ruler while it was falling. My phone doesn't do slow motion (it probably does and I just don't know how to work it!) so the time resolution is limited, but here are four successive frames from the video.

Frame 1

Frame 2

Frame 3

Frame 4

It should be obvious that the bottom edge of the ruler does leave the object it is resting against. I've drawn a red line on the images to show this, though I'm not sure how clear it is in these pictures. The frame rate is 30 fps, so the pictures shown cover only 0.1 seconds. I think this is too short a time for the eye to follow the motion of the bottom edge of the ruler. I could not see the bottom edge moving away when just watching the ruler fall. In fact I was a bit surprised to see it on the video.

I note that the ruler starts to move away between around 45° to 30° to the horizontal, which tallies quite nicely with Michael's estimate of 41.8°.

John Rennie
  • 355,118
  • 1
    My answer was definitely a theorist's answer, but it's good to see an experimentalists' answer as well. – Michael Seifert Nov 06 '15 at 18:24
  • Thanks John Rennie, for your experiment and photos. I couldn't see the separation, presumably because friction on my desk was higher, thus reducing the separation. I was thinking of running the experiment on moist, smooth ice but that won't be necessary now. – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 18:29
10

As noted by John Rennie in the comments, there will be a point as the ruler falls where it loses contact with the ridge and begins to slide to the right. The idea here is that if the ruler were to keep its pivot point fixed, then at some point, the force applied by the pivot point would have to switch from having a component to the right to having a component to the left (i.e., pulling the CM back in rather than pushing it out.) Since the "ledge" specified in the OP can only exert a force to the right, this will be the point that the base of the ruler begins to slide away from the ledge. (This is similar in spirit to the classic "disc slides down a frictionless hemisphere" problem.)

To prove this, we use conservation of energy to find the ruler's angular velocity as a function of $\theta$. This becomes $$ \frac{1}{2} I \omega^2 = mg \frac{h}{2} ( 1- \cos \theta) \quad \Rightarrow \quad \frac{1}{3} h^2 \omega^2 = gh (1 - \cos \theta) \quad \Rightarrow \quad \omega^2 = \frac{3g}{h}(1 - \cos \theta). $$ Taking the derivative of both sides with respect to time, we get $$ 2 \omega \alpha = \frac{3 g}{h} \sin \theta \omega \quad \Rightarrow \quad \alpha = \frac{3gh}{2} \sin \theta $$

The linear acceleration of the center of mass is therefore $$ \vec{a} = \frac{h}{2} (- \omega^2 \hat{r} + \alpha \hat{\theta}) = - \frac{3g}{2}(1 - \cos \theta) \hat{r} + \frac{3g}{4} \sin \theta \hat{\theta} $$ using polar coordinates (with $\theta = 0$ at the vertical and increasing clockwise.) In terms of the Cartesian components, we have $\hat{r} = \cos \theta \hat{y} + \sin \theta \hat{x}$ and $\hat{\theta} = \cos \theta \hat{x} - \sin \theta \hat{y}$, so all told this becomes \begin{align*} \vec{a} &= - \frac{3g}{2}(1 - \cos \theta) (\cos \theta \hat{y} + \sin \theta \hat{x}) + \frac{3g}{4} \sin \theta (\cos \theta \hat{x} - \sin \theta \hat{y}) \\ &= \frac{3g}{2}\left((\cos \theta - 1) + \frac{1}{2} \cos \theta \right) \sin \theta\hat{x} + \frac{3g}{2}\left((\cos \theta - 1) \cos \theta - \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 \theta \right) \hat{y}. \end{align*}

We see that $a_x = 0$ when $\frac{3}{2} \cos \theta - 1 = 0$, or $\cos \theta = \frac{2}{3}$, or $\theta \approx 48.2^\circ$. Thus, once the ruler falls past this angle, the net force on center of mass must be to the left to keep it moving in a circular arc. On a perfectly frictionless table, the ruler would leave the "ledge" at this point, since the ledge is unable to provide a force in this direction. In reality, friction might be able to hold the bottom of the ruler in place for a bit longer than this, making the angle at which the ruler leaves the ledge much closer to the horizontal.

  • Oddly, the critical angle turns out to be exactly the same as the classic "disc slides down a frictionless hemisphere" problem. Eerie. – Michael Seifert Nov 06 '15 at 18:20
  • "disc slides down a frictionless hemisphere". I've made that error before, so hopefully not again! Thank you for your excellent answer. – Gert Nov 06 '15 at 18:25