Applying forces to a body, outside it's center of mass.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of force to a rigid body outside its center of mass and the resulting effects on linear and rotational motion. It highlights the confusion surrounding the linear force produced when a force is applied at a point away from the center of mass, using the example of spinning a pen on a finger. The physics of torque and linear acceleration are clarified, emphasizing that while torques can create rotation, they do not necessarily result in linear motion if the net force is zero. The conversation also touches on the challenges faced by spacecraft designers in managing the interplay between translation and rotation forces. Ultimately, the inquiry seeks to understand how a force can create rotation without a noticeable change in linear velocity when applied in a specific manner.
Xcrypt
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hello.
I'm currently coding on a physics engine.

To do so, I looked up some code from open-source engines.

I noted that there is a function where you can apply a force to a rigid body, outside it's center of mass.

It goes something like this:

ApplyForceAPosition(vector force, vector positionWorld);

Where the resultant torque would be
distance(positionWorld,m_centerofmass)*force*sin(theta),
as expected.

However, applying the force outside the center of mass can also cause a linear force.
it would be calculated as follows:
m_Force = force;

But this seems strange to me. If I put balance pen on one finger, and I apply a force to it, so that it would spin, I can do so without visually noticing any change in linear velocity.

So it seems to me that a more appropriate formula to compute the resulting linear force from a force applied outside the center of mass would be:

m_force = |cos(theta)|*force;
Where theta would be the angle between the force vector and [forcepos-COM].

I can't seem to find any articles on this, and I'm most likely wrong, but then how come I can spin a pen on one finger without causing any change in linear velocity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The physics engines are correct. The acceleration of the center of mass of an object is the the vector sum of all of the external forces acting on the object (regardless of point of application) divided by the object's mass. Those external forces also arise in torques, and here the torques obviously do depend on the point of application.
 
Well my question was not really whether I was correct or not. I even stated that I'm most likely wrong. The question is why. Please read my question.

I can spin a pen on one finger (by pushing it with one finger only), without changing any visually noticeable change in linear velocity. However, if I were to change the position of application of the force, it doesn't spin so much, and does have change in linear velocity. Please explain.
 
You cannot create pure rotation unless the forces cancel, resulting in zero net force, but the torques do not cancel. It's called a couple.Spacecraft designers have to deal with the fact that forces result in translation and rotation *all the time*. It would be really nice if jets designed for translational motion always resulted in pure translation, if the jets designed for rotational motion (when operated in pairs) always resulted in a pure couple. This never happens. Instead there is always some undesired cross coupling between translation and rotation.

Those spacecraft designers have to accommodate for this undesired cross coupling in their control systems. If we had the physics wrong, those guidance and control systems would not get the vehicles where they are supposed to go. Those guidance and control systems *do* get the vehicles where they are supposed to go.

NASA simulates every vehicle that is intended to dock with the Space Station to make sure the vehicle will be safe. It uses something very similar to the physics engines calculations you described in the opening post. If we had the physics wrong, those simulations would yield something different from the true behavior of these vehicles. Those simulations are instead spot on. The vehicles behave pretty much as predicted.
 
Don't worry, I'm not saying physicists are wrong :)
But I still need clarification for the situation with the pen on my finger! In the case where I apply a force with one finger only, where is the other force coming from that would create a zero net linear force?
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top