Timeline for Conversion of linear velocity to angular velocity and vice versa
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 26 at 15:34 | answer | added | John Alexiou | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 25 at 12:05 | comment | added | Albertus Magnus | @nonhuman If you want the general case, then you want mass$=m$, radius$=r$, and so on, you are instead getting the highly unusual special case where everything equals 1. However, since density equals mass divided by area, or in your case $1/\pi$; you can't have mass and radius equal to one while also having density equal to one. It is contradictory as opposed to "general". | |
| Feb 25 at 6:42 | comment | added | nonhuman | @JohnAlexiou I want the general case. That was on purpose. | |
| Feb 25 at 5:08 | history | edited | nonhuman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I accidentally added "No energy is lost"
|
| Feb 24 at 22:40 | comment | added | John Alexiou | Making the mass and radius equal to one and setting the density equal to one is a conflicting set of constraints that are not needed as it does not simplify the problem at all. | |
| Feb 24 at 22:39 | comment | added | John Alexiou | If it is sliding and there is a coefficient of friction then indeed energy is lost to heat and friction. | |
| Feb 24 at 18:12 | comment | added | trula | if you have a sliding ball on a surface with friction "No energy is lost to heat or anything like that" is impossible.It is only possible if you have no sliding so $\omega= \frac{v}{r}$ | |
| S Feb 24 at 18:05 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 24 at 18:56 | |||||
| S Feb 24 at 18:05 | history | asked | nonhuman | CC BY-SA 4.0 |