Does angular acceleration not always come with torque?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between torque and angular acceleration, particularly in scenarios where the moment of inertia may not be constant. Participants explore the implications of this relationship in various contexts, including theoretical and practical applications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that torque is related to angular acceleration through the equation τ = I d²θ/dt², but questions its validity when the moment of inertia is not constant.
  • Another participant introduces the concept that the full relationship between torque and angular momentum is given by the equation τ = dL/dt, where L is angular momentum defined as Iω.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that torque is necessary to maintain constant angular velocity against forces like air drag, indicating that angular acceleration can occur without torque under certain conditions.
  • It is proposed that changes in angular inertia due to internal forces can lead to angular acceleration while conserving angular momentum, highlighting the complexity of the relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which angular acceleration occurs without torque, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the relationship between torque and angular acceleration may depend on the constancy of moment of inertia and the presence of internal forces, suggesting that additional factors may complicate the straightforward application of the torque-angular acceleration relationship.

carrotstien
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I always thought that

torque = I*d²θ/dt²

so that, if there is any d²θ/dt² on an object with a moment of inertia (both with respect to the same point)..then there must be a torque applied.

However, I've found a case where this isn't true. So, I'm assuming there is more to it then that simple formula.

I found, on wiki
"When the moment of inertia is constant, one can also relate the torque on an object and its angular acceleration in a similar equation:

τ = I α

"

So perhaps, when the moment of inertia isn't constant, then that formula has some stuff appended to it. (what?)

The situation i speak of:
A particle is traveling in a straight line not through the origin at a constant velocity.
It's (r) and (θ) are both functions of time. If you work out the time derivatives, you get a non-zero θ''. However, there are no forces, and no torques on the particle. (like a car just cruising past you).
Also, the origin isn't moving or accelerating, so that there doesn't seem to be some relativity issue (i am not talking about special or general)

Can anyone explain / tell me the full relation between torque and θ''...since
torque = I*θ'' seems to be a simplified case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In analog with Newton's second law for translation, the full formula would be something like:
[tex]\vec{\tau}=\frac{d\vec{L}}{dt}[/tex]
[tex]\vec{L} \equiv I \vec{\omega}}[/tex]

So only when moment of inertia is constant does it reduce to the more familiar form.
 
An automobile supplies torque to its wheels at constant velocity to compensate for air drag. So when there is energy loss, torque is required to maintain a constant angular velocity.

Angular acceleration can occur without torque:

dL/dt = d(Iω)/dt = I dω/dt + ω dI/dt

If I dω/dt = - ω dI/dt , no torque is required for angular acceleration.
Bob S
 
If the angular inertia is changed via an internal force, then angular acceleration will occur while the angular inertia is changing because angular momentum is conserved. Note that internal work is peformed during such a change, and that angular kinetic energy will also change.
 
Last edited:
yea, thanks, Nabeshin and all...i get it
i just never knew that L was defined in terms of Iw the way you showed it.
Now everything makes sense again.
 
yea, thanks, Nabeshin and all...i get it
i just never knew that L was defined in terms of Iw the way you showed it.
Now everything makes sense again.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K