0
$\begingroup$

As the title says, I want to model the path of an object sliding on the surface of a turntable, as it is slowly flung off.

The final application of this is , modelling fine material moving along the grinding table of our vertical raw mill.

I'm thinking steady state for right now, so the particle just appears at some inner radius, with the same tangetial velocity as the table at that radius, but the max static friction in the radial direction is not enough to maintain a circular path so it begins to move.

Conditions :

  • I would prefer this in a non-inertial reference frame. (i.e. I'm sitting to the side of the thing an watching this unfold) No drag from surrounding fluid atmosphere.

  • Objects is microscopic compared to the radius of the table, and we are only focusing on a single particle.

  • Object has mass and is a perfect sphere. I dont care about rolling vs sliding, so this shape can be changed for ease of calculation.

  • There is friction between the turntable and the particle.

  • The turntable is moving at a constant angular velocity and completely horizontal (after this, the next step is to include the peaks and valleys of the actual table topography).

Calculations :

We'll start with my crude diagrams :

Image (1) :

Object position over time dt

Image (2) :

Cross section view of vertical body diagram

Image (3) :

Plan View Body diagram at t and t+dt

The first assumption for my approach is, at the moment $(t_1)$ the radial static friction shifts to kinetic friction, the object moves in the direction of the tangetial velocity of the table at $(r_1)$. Thus it experiences friction against the tangetial velocity, and moves to a new radii $(r_1 + dr =r_2)$ at a new angle $( \theta {_1} +d\theta = \theta_2)$.

At this new point, the table's tangential velocity is greater than the particle's so it is accelerated, and such and so forth.

My problem is trying to describe this mathematically describe the forces, it is keep confusing myself.

(a) Is the assumption that movement is in only the current tangential direction correct?

(b) Is the acceleration from the difference between the table and the object velocities, different from the angular friction of the movement in the first place?

(c) Should the sum of the accelerations at $r_1$ (or $t_1$ ) sum to the Centripedal acceleration at $r_2$ $(t_2)$?

So here are my sum of forces :

  1. $F_z$ (Image (2), verical $z -$direction):

$m×a_z = F_n-F_g =0$ so , $F_n=m×g$

  1. $F_o$ (Image (3), $\theta$ direction) :

$m×a_{\theta}×r=-u×F_n$ and $a_{\theta}×r =(v_2-v_1)/dt$

Or $m×a_ {\theta} =-u×F_n + m×(v_2-v_1)/dt$ ?

  1. $F_r$ (Images (2) and (3) , radial direction) :

$m×a_r = -u×FN$ and $a_r = v^2/r$

Or something else ? I'm quite not sure how to account for the radial acceleration changing with poistion

  1. Support equations :

    • $\rm a_{tangent} = a_o×r$
    • $\rm v_{tangent} = r× \omega$
    • $\rm a_{centripedal} = v_{tangent}^2/r = r× \omega^2$
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Is this for an actual table? Maybe a measurement is easier. As well, a measurement would be highly desirable to validate any calculation you do. $\endgroup$
    – Dan
    Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 16:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A "non-inertial frame" would mean one that's rotating with the table, which seems to conflict with your statement that you want to be "off to one side watching this happen". Can you clarify? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ W/o Mathjax your formulas are barely readable. Oh. and what Michael said.... $\endgroup$
    – Gert
    Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 16:40
  • $\begingroup$ Seems to me that your simplifying assumptions are the wrong ones. The purpose of simplifying assumptions is to remove the 2ndary effects, and only concentrate on the primary effects (1st order approximation). I think you ignoring the fluid air and looking at the dust as particles having friction with the wheels is way off. I propose the air that is in motion has a FAR bigger effect than gravity and friction.. I would model the airflow created by a spinning blade and assume the particles are massless and come along for the ride. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle B
    Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 20:58
  • $\begingroup$ You might get (or rent) a slo-mo camera... they're not expensive these days. Watch how your dust actually behaves at 1,000 frames/second could give you great insight as to what's going on. $\endgroup$
    – Kyle B
    Commented Mar 3, 2022 at 20:59

0