Rotation of rigid body in space

AI Thread Summary
Applying a force perpendicular to a line through the center of gravity (cg) generates torque, causing rotation around the cg without translating it, but this is a misconception. Any force applied to a rigid body will accelerate the center of mass, regardless of its point of application. As the force moves closer to the cg, torque decreases, and once it aligns with the cg, torque becomes zero, leading to translational movement. The center of mass will always translate according to F = ma, even if the force is applied far from the cg. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing the motion of rigid bodies in space.
DgN
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I have been thinking about this for hours now but I can't seem to find a definitive answer so I hope you can help me. So here is my problem:

If you exert a force perpendicular to a line through the center of gravity at distance L you will produce a torque T, that torque will rotate the body around the center of gravity with a rotational acceleration w_dot = IT where I is the moment of inertia. Because this force is perpendicular to the leverage arm through the cg no force will be applied to the cg so we will have no translation of this point, only rotation. Am I right so far?

If my previous statements were correct I see a problem with my following resoning:
Imagine that the object in space is a long iron beam. If we apply a perpendicular force in one end it will start to rotate about cg. Now imagine that we move the applied force closer and closer to cg, the torque will become smaller but it will still produce only rotational movement as long as the force is perpendicular. As soon as the applied force hits straight on cg we will get zero torque and therefore no rotation but now the cg will translate according to F = ma. Is it really a sudden step between rotational movement and translational movement of the object or what have I missed? Will the cg start to translate even for perpendicular forces applied far from cg? Will objects in space always rotate about cg if torque is applied or can it rotate around other points?

I hope you can help, and I hope it is not something too simple that I have forgot so I don't have too feel stupid :P

Regards
Niclas
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DgN said:
Because this force is perpendicular to the leverage arm through the cg no force will be applied to the cg so we will have no translation of this point, only rotation. Am I right so far?
No. A force exerted anywhere on the body will accelerate the center of mass.
 
Doc Al said:
No. A force exerted anywhere on the body will accelerate the center of mass.

Hmm, ok so you just sum all forces as if they were applied to the center of mass?
 
DgN said:
Hmm, ok so you just sum all forces as if they were applied to the center of mass?
Right. In ƩF = ma, a is the acceleration of the center of mass.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top