Can Torque Be Defined in Non-Rotational Situations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter physics user1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torque
AI Thread Summary
Torque can be defined in non-rotational situations, as the definition τ = r x F applies regardless of rotation. When considering a force applied at a distance from a point, the torque calculated can differ from that calculated around the axis of rotation. The effectiveness of torque increases with a longer lever arm, allowing the same torque to be achieved with less force. This concept is illustrated by using a wrench to turn a bolt, where the force is applied at a distance from the bolt head. Overall, torque remains relevant in both rotational and non-rotational contexts.
physics user1
The definition of torque is τ= r x F

Let's consider a disk that is rotating around his axis of symmetry, we are usually used to calculate the torque applied by a tangential force at the disk using as r the radius of the disk, but can I define a torque of the force using as r the generic distance between a point external of the disk? In this case will be the torque by this point different by the one referred to the axis of rotation? In my opinion yes because it's the most logical thing

Can we define a torque in a non rotation situation? Think at a particle that is pulled by a force in a uniform accelerated motion, according to the definition of torque we can choose a point in space and get the distance between that point and the force and get a torque, is that right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Cozma Alex said:
Can we define a torque in a non rotation situation?
Yes, the definition of torque says noting about rotation.
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
Cozma Alex said:
Can we define a torque in a non rotation situation?

one can define a torque from taking radius vector from the axis and the force vector applied at a point on the body- as its a vector product the torque will generate a rotation due to application of the force. so you can not say that its a non rotational system.
 
Cozma Alex said:
The definition of torque is τ= r x F

... but can I define a torque of the force using as r the generic distance between a point external of the disk? In this case will be the torque by this point different by the one referred to the axis of rotation?
The answer to the first question is "yes" -- this is what happens every time a wrench is used to turn a bolt or a nut; the force is applied at some distance external to the bolt head or nut.
The answer to the second question is, "it depends" -- the same force (F) applied to a longer lever-arm (r) will yield a proportionally greater torque. Said another way, a longer lever-arm allows the same torque to be developed with proportionately less force.
 
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