• Support PF! Buy your school textbooks, materials and every day products Here!

Can an object be in equilibrium if it is in motion?

  • Thread starter linhison
  • Start date
  • #1
1
0
Homework Statement
Can an object be in equilibrium if it is in motion? Explain
* This is a prelab question to a lab that deals with equilibrium and torque

The attempt at a solution
My thought process:

- Equilibrium means that:
1) Net external forces = 0
2) Net torque = 0
- Net torque is related to angular acceleration, so if net torque = 0, then angular acceleration = 0.
0 acceleration could mean constant velocity which would mean that the object is in motion.
*Not sure if this second point is correct*
-If an object is at constant velocity around an axis of rotation, are the external forces at equilibrium?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
232
36
Welcome to PF !

Homework Statement
Can an object be in equilibrium if it is in motion? Explain
* This is a prelab question to a lab that deals with equilibrium and torque

The attempt at a solution
My thought process:

- Equilibrium means that:
1) Net external forces = 0
2) Net torque = 0
- Net torque is related to angular acceleration, so if net torque = 0, then angular acceleration = 0.
0 acceleration could mean constant velocity which would mean that the object is in motion.
*Not sure if this second point is correct*
Either the object is at rest or is moving with constant velocity . In the former case we say it is in static equilibrium . In the later it is in dynamic equilibrium .
-If an object is at constant velocity around an axis of rotation, are the external forces at equilibrium?
If the object is moving with constant speed around an axis of rotation then there must be a net centripetal force acting on it . The object is not at equilibrium .
 
  • #3
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2019 Award
15,933
5,643
Welcome to PF !



Either the object is at rest ...
Actually, there is no such thing, in and of itself and as a stand-alone statement like that. This may sound like nitpicking (and possibly for the purposes of this problem it is) but it is a very important point. All motion is relative. Something may be at rest in the frame of reference of the lab bench on which it is sitting, but it is not "at rest" or "in motion" in any absolute sense (unless it's accelerating, but that's a different story).
 
  • #4
haruspex
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
32,781
5,050
If the object is moving with constant speed around an axis of rotation then there must be a net centripetal force acting on it . The object is not at equilibrium .
unless it's accelerating, but that's a different story
From a little Googling, the general view seems to be that one should distinguish translational from rotational equilibrium. An object spinning about its mass centre at a constant rate is considered to be in rotational equilibrium. If its mass centre is not accelerating then it would also be in translational equilibrium. This seems to fit with the OP's view.

In fact, I added the 'mass centre' qualifier, others don't. But maybe the thinking is that if it is spinning about some other axis at constant speed then it is in rotational equilibrium (no net torque) but not translational equilibrium.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Can an object be in equilibrium if it is in motion?

  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
601
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
939
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
891
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
12
Views
770
Replies
3
Views
11K
Top