Conceptual question: translational and rotational equilibrium

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the conditions for a rigid body to be in equilibrium, specifically the necessity for both net force and net torque to equal zero. A participant grapples with understanding why these conditions are not redundant, using the example of a door revolving around a pivot. The key takeaway is that while net forces can cancel each other out, net torques must be considered as vector quantities, requiring attention to their direction and magnitude. The right-hand rule is essential for determining the sign of torque in these scenarios.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rigid body dynamics
  • Familiarity with vector quantities and their operations
  • Knowledge of torque and its calculation using the cross product
  • Basic grasp of equilibrium conditions in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the right-hand rule for vector cross products
  • Learn about the principles of rotational dynamics
  • Explore examples of torque in various mechanical systems
  • Investigate the implications of equilibrium in static and dynamic systems
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying mechanics, as well as educators and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of equilibrium conditions in rigid body dynamics.

laica
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



There are two important conditions for a rigid body to be in equilibrium. The first condition is that the net force on a body must be zero. The second condition is that the net torque on a body must also be zero.


2,3. Relevant equations; attempt at solution.

I apologize for the simple question but I am self-studying physics and having a hard time with this concept.

So my question is: how are these two conditions not redundant? My initial reaction is that net torque must be zero if net force is zero, since [tex]\tau[/tex]=Fr. Then I drew this situation (a door revolving around a central pivot point) that seems to show net torque without net force (the 2 forces add up to zero but there is still rotation). The img is attached to this post.

The problem is, I still think net torque would be zero.
[tex]\tau[/tex]=Fr
[tex]\tau[/tex]=-Fr
[tex]\Sigma\[/tex][tex]\tau[/tex]=(Fr)+(-Fr)=0

Where am I going wrong here? Is one radius -r maybe?

Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • Force.jpg
    Force.jpg
    3.6 KB · Views: 556
Physics news on Phys.org
The torque is the vector product of the radius-vector and the force. You have to handle both F and r as vectors.

Just thinking logically, the force on the left will rotate the rod anti-clockwise, and so will the force on the right. So the torques add, while the forces cancel.

ehild
 
You've got your directions wrong. Torque is a vector quantity. That means that when you add two or more torques together to find the net torque, you must do so with due regard to sign.

The simplest way to add torques correctly, would be to use your intuition to find the "sense" of rotation of every force vector. For instance, in your example above, the left force tries to spin the rod counter-clockwise, while the right force tries to spin it counter-clockwise as well. Therefore, the net torque is the sum of the two, since the two torques have the same sense of rotation.
Were they opposite, then the direction of rotation would be determined by which is the greater torque.A more complete approach that you'll need for further studies, when keeping track of signs is a bit more important:
How do we take care of that sign, then? We define torque as a vector perpendicular to the plane of rotation (The plane of the lever arm vector and the force vector).

And we determine the sign by way of the right-hand rule (Wiki link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_hand_rule)

Torque as a vector is defined as:
[tex]\vec \tau = \vec r \times \vec F[/tex]

Applying it to the situation above, taking the torque about the axis through the center of the rod, taking the positive direction as the one coming out of the plane of the page (If this is Greek to you, read up on the article on the right hand rule and vector cross product), we see a positive torque whose magnitude is [tex]2Fr[/tex].
 

Similar threads

Replies
43
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K