Looking for proof that a free rigid body will rotate about its CM

AI Thread Summary
A free rigid body subjected to a torque-producing force will exhibit two primary behaviors: its center of mass (CM) moves in a straight line, and the body rotates about an axis through its CM. This behavior is derived from the conservation of total linear momentum and can be demonstrated through the equations of motion for the system. The discussion emphasizes the need for formal proofs in mechanics literature, as many existing texts do not adequately address these concepts. Additionally, the conversation touches on the relationship between linear and angular motion, highlighting the importance of external forces and torques. Overall, the inquiry seeks comprehensive resources to substantiate these principles in rigid body dynamics.
scoomer
Messages
18
Reaction score
4
Can anyone recommend a textbook or web paper that proves that, in general, a free rigid body will act in the following way when the body is subjected to a force (or impulse) that is torque producing:
a) The center of mass (CM) moves in a straight line.
b) The body rotates about an axis through its CM.
(By "free" I mean unconstrained.)

It seems intuitive and many textbooks state the above. But the ones I've looked at don't seem to present a proof.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scoomer said:
Can anyone recommend a textbook or web paper that proves that, in general, a free rigid body will act in the following way when the body is subjected to a force (or impulse) that is torque producing:
a) The center of mass (CM) moves in a straight line.
b) The body rotates about an axis through its CM.
(By "free" I mean unconstrained.)
It follows from the conservation of total linear momentum, if you consider that the body consist of many small masses, each with it's own linear momentum. I don't have a formal proof, but that is the line it would along.
 
I also missed this very important concepts from mechanics books. So I worked it out by myself. I define coordinates (all relevant coordinates are vectors):
r_i=r_c+r_i'
v_i=v_c+v_i'=v_c+\omega\times r_i'
I suppose it is possible to show that the necessary vector \omega corresponds to the angular velocity about just any axis. I use center of mass coordinates since later I will need \sum m_ir_i'=0.
-----------------------------
Now
\sum F_i=\sum m_ia_i
\sum F_i=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\sum m_iv_i
\sum F_i^\text{ext}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left((\sum m_i)v_c\right)
F^\text{ext}=Ma_c
On the LHS I used that internal forces cancel F_{ij}=-F_{ji} and on the RHS I used that \sum m_iv_i'=\omega\times\sum m_i r_i'=0. Now you have the linear law of motion.
--------------------------
For the angular part
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\sum m_ir_i'\times v_i'=\sum m_i r_i'\times a_i'=\sum m_i r_i'\times (a_i-a_c)=\sum r_i'\times F_i=\sum r_i'\times F_i^\text{ext}
The internal forces cancel again since force are along the line of action r_i\times F_{ij}+r_j\times F_{ji}=\Delta r\times F_{ij}=0. So, the torque from external forces about the center of mass is equal to the angular momentum about the center of mass.

With some additional ideas one can show that therefore in the absence of external forces the center of mass velocity and the angular velocity are constant.
 
Last edited:
thank you, that was very helpful
 
Actually my derivation doesn't specifically address the rigid body (so I don't need \omega). It is for a general set of interacting particles.

That's where I believe conservation of angular momentum comes from. At least I haven't met anyone who convincingly can use Noethers theorem, without including lots of hidden assumptions :smile:
 
what?!
has my reply been deleted again..?
anyway... can you please prov the second law of Newton for rotation?
thanks :D
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top