Talk:Introduction to angular momentum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Introduction to angular momentum redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physics Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with Angular momentum on July 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Units of measurement

It would be helpful if the table showing differences between linear momentum and angular momentum showed the differences in the units of measurement. This would reinforce the notion that it isn't reasonable to add linear momentum and angular momentum in the hope of arriving at some sort of total momentum. My understanding of the units, in the SI system, are as follows:

linear momentum kg.m.s^-1
angular momentum kg.m².s^-1

I'm not skilled at manipulating tables of this kind. If someone able to manipulate the table agrees with my request, feel free to go ahead and add another row! Dolphin51 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False statement

This is a false statement: "The direction of angular momentum is the same as the direction of the angular velocity." Yes there are special cases where this is true, but the article doesn't state this anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.54.149 (talk) 04:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to kinetic energy content

If we regard the 2 basic entities of matter as being mass and kinetic energy of motion, we con make the following statement about angular motion: Angular motion occurs in such a manner that all the constituents of the moving system do not have the same quantity of kinetic energy of motion. Thus a system in angular motion cannot be said to have any uniform quantity of kinetic energy content of its constituents. And thus a discussion of the motion of such a system is reduced to that of its momentum (Mv) properties. When these are analyzed, it is determined that the kinetic energy contained in the individual matter components of the system vary directly in accordance with their distance from the axis of rotation of the system, so that the kinetic energy of each subcomponent is modified by the factor r, where r is the axial distance of the individual subcomponent to the axis. And when this modification of kinetic energy content is made for the matter of the entire system the system kinetic energy content number is changed from the kinetic energy content value (summation of MV^2 values) to the values (summation of MVr/2 values), and thus for a constant M and r value, the angular momentum value varies as the square root of the kinetic energy content value.WFPM (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, add it. But in "the kinetic energy of each subcomponent is modified by the factor r, where r is the axial distance of the individual subcomponent to the axis", I think "radial distance" is clearer because it makes you think "length of the radius" instead "distance along the axis".

Even clearer would be replacing "axial distance of the individual subcomponent to the axis" with the shorter "distance of each subcomponent from the axis".

That's my 2¢ — and it's worth every single penny you paid for it! HelviticaBold 06:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading example

The leading paragraph contains the following sentence: A freely-rotating disk (like a Frisbee in flight or a tire rolling down a hill) has angular momentum. I believe this is misleading because it suggests that only rotating bodies possess angular momentum. The definition of angular momentum indicates that any object possessing linear momentum also possesses angular momentum, and the relationship between the linear and angular momenta is a function of choice of origin. Any vehicle of mass m moving at constant velocity v has constant linear momentum and constant angular momentum. If the choice of origin lies on the trajectory of this vehicle then the vehicle's angular momentum will be zero; but if the choice of origin is offset from the trajectory by a distance r then the vehicle's angular momentum will be of magnitude mvr and its direction will be given by the right-hand screw rule. Is there any objection to me incorporating this expanded view of angular momentum into the leading paragraph in place of the misleading example presently there? Dolphin (t) 22:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]