New Reply

rod in freefall

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Nov22-12, 03:25 AM   #1
 

rod in freefall


This has been brought up numerous times but I don't really understand it. Consider a rod in freefall.
If you put your coordinate frame in the center of mass of the rod, there will be no torque around it and the rod as a whole will follow a straightline down. But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
What goes wrong with this picture, because clearly the rod doesn't rotate!
 
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
physics news on PhysOrg.com

>> Iron-platinum alloys could be new-generation hard drives
>> Lab sets a new record for creating heralded photons
>> Breakthrough calls time on bootleg booze
Nov22-12, 03:28 AM   #2
 
Quote by aaaa202 View Post
This has been brought up numerous times but I don't really understand it. Consider a rod in freefall.
If you put your coordinate frame in the center of mass of the rod, there will be no torque around it and the rod as a whole will follow a straightline down. But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
What goes wrong with this picture, because clearly the rod doesn't rotate!
the rod is a rigid body. the other side of the rod also has an equal torque, and due to rigidity, will be in the opposite direction.
 
Nov22-12, 03:38 AM   #3
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
Quote by aaaa202 View Post
This has been brought up numerous times but I don't really understand it. Consider a rod in freefall.
If you put your coordinate frame in the center of mass of the rod, there will be no torque around it and the rod as a whole will follow a straightline down. But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
What goes wrong with this picture, because clearly the rod doesn't rotate!
The problem is that you are you using an accelerating point as your 'pivot'. Torque about such an accelerating point does not simply equal the rate of change of angular momentum, unless that point happens to be the center of mass.

See my post in this thread: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4097976
 
Nov22-12, 03:39 AM   #4
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1

rod in freefall


Quote by chill_factor View Post
the rod is a rigid body. the other side of the rod also has an equal torque, and due to rigidity, will be in the opposite direction.
The only external force acting on the rod is gravity.
 
Nov22-12, 06:42 AM   #5
 
Quote by aaaa202 View Post
But now put a coordinate frame on one of the end points. Apart from the gravity pulling down on the rod as a whole, there will now be a net torque on the rod (because gravity acts in the center of mass).
In an accelerated frame that falls with the rod, there is an inertial force upwards:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictiti..._straight_line

The inertial force cancels gravity at any point of the rod. Regardless if the origin is in the center or the end: There is no net force on any part of the rod in such a frame, and thus no torque.
 
Nov22-12, 06:57 AM   #6
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
Quote by A.T. View Post
The inertial force cancels gravity at any point of the rod. Regardless if the origin is in the center or the end: There is no net force on any part of the rod in such a frame, and thus no torque.
That's a good way to look at it (and probably more straightforward).

The extra terms (beyond the torque due to external forces) you get when you calculate dL/dt about an accelerating point are equivalent to introducing that inertial force.
 
Nov22-12, 08:33 AM   #7
mfb
 
Mentor
In the frame of one of the ends, the rod gains angular momentum - by falling linearly to the floor.
The torque is present, and required for a linear motion downwards in this frame.
 
Nov22-12, 08:44 AM   #8
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 1
Quote by mfb View Post
In the frame of one of the ends, the rod gains angular momentum - by falling linearly to the floor.
The torque is present, and required for a linear motion downwards in this frame.
Viewed from an inertial frame, the rod gains angular momentum. But in the accelerating frame of one of its ends, it does not.
 
Nov23-12, 02:12 AM   #9
D H
 
Mentor
Quote by A.T. View Post
The inertial force cancels gravity at any point of the rod. Regardless if the origin is in the center or the end: There is no net force on any part of the rod in such a frame, and thus no torque.
Yes, there is a torque. It's the same phenomenon that causes spaghettification. Taking advantage of, or otherwise dealing with, gravity gradient torque is an important concept for satellites in low Earth orbit.
 
Nov23-12, 03:00 AM   #10
K^2
 
Recognitions:
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Quote by D H View Post
Yes, there is a torque. It's the same phenomenon that causes spaghettification. Taking advantage of, or otherwise dealing with, gravity gradient torque is an important concept for satellites in low Earth orbit.
Problem assumes uniform gravitational field. There are no tidal forces. Doc Al and A.T. have it covered from both perspectives.
 
New Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: rod in freefall
Thread Forum Replies
Error measurement in time of flight tests Classical Physics 4
Freefall!!! Introductory Physics Homework 2
Freefall General Physics 6
Freefall Introductory Physics Homework 3
Freefall Introductory Physics Homework 3