Ïf you read the last 2 posts, here are some practice problems. Try writing down the expression for angular acceleration and then verify with check with the expressions in red.
Link to problems:
http://www.anujkalia.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-yours.html
Bhaiya I Tried These Question it's a good and easy way to do this question i wanted to ask are there any cases in which it will fail and 2nd What Exactly was the logic that you thought like this?
ReplyDeleteHave A Problem in http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PG0ockp6BCI/S7N5qer5HXI/AAAAAAAAAIM/eVlwGA5Gk2k/s1600/7.jpg
ReplyDeleteHere Why Haven't We taken Torque of m abt P.
hi vipul i think the approach is similar to that we use in solving simple problems in laws of motion .
ReplyDeletei think the basic concept is solving it considering as a system.for example in this- http://anujkalia.blogspot.com/2011/11/lets-learn-something-new.html
ReplyDeletewe see the mass-string-mass system.note earth is not part of the system.earth is applying friction at point P.but as well are finding torque about point P,friction ka torque becomes 0.
that makes this method so awesome :D
Hi Vipul.
ReplyDeleteThe weight "mg" is balanced by the normal reaction on it. If you want to take the torque due to "mg", you should also take the torque due to 'N'.
Hi again.
ReplyDeleteThere was no logic behind the method. There was only observation. "Back in our times", there was this fever of 'generalization', i.e. generalizing the answer of 1 problem to work for more problems.
And I was pretty good at generalization :).
Ok Thanks Bhaiya Got My Mistake in That Question!
ReplyDeleteAnd Ya Must Tell You That your observation was great and great generalization!
ReplyDelete