Help me analyze the situation of torque

  • Thread starter Thread starter tukms
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torque
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of torque in the context of internal forces, particularly in relation to a conclusion from a textbook stating that net internal torque equals zero. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the definitions and relationships of torque and forces, specifically questioning the implications of Newton's third law in this scenario.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reconcile the definition of torque as the cross product of position and force with the assertion that net internal torque is zero. They question the relationship between forces and their respective positions, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the underlying principles.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the definitions and implications of torque and internal forces. Some guidance has been offered regarding the assumptions made in the textbook, particularly about the alignment of forces and positions. However, there is no explicit consensus on the resolution of the original poster's confusion.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions an attachment with a textbook conclusion, which is not visible in the thread. There is also a note about the proper formatting for LaTeX, indicating that the poster is attempting to communicate mathematical expressions but is facing technical difficulties.

tukms
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I have a confusion of a conclusion in the textbook ( I posted it in the attach file )

Net internal torque equals zero ( similarly to conclusion in the Newton’s third law ) but I myself reckon that torque is defined as
$rm{r \times F$
And maybe there occurs the case below :
$rm{F}}_{{\rm{21}}} {\rm{ = - F}}_{{\rm{12} $
But
$rm{r}}_{21} {\rm{F}}_{{\rm{21}}} \ne {\rm{r}}_{12} {\rm{ - F}}_{{\rm{12}$

Could someone help me analyze this situation , I think that the conclusion in textbook is true but it is still fuzzy for me
Thank you in advance
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I only try to post Latex but no success :(

again
I have a confusion of a conclusion in the textbook ( I posted it in the attach file )

Net internal torque equals zero ( similarly to conclusion in the Newton’s third law ) but I myself reckon that torque is defined as
${\rm{r \times F}}$
And maybe there occurs the case below :
${\rm{F}}_{{\rm{21}}} {\rm{ = - F}}_{{\rm{12}}} $
But
${\rm{r}}_{21} {\rm{F}}_{{\rm{21}}} \ne {\rm{r}}_{12} {\rm{ - F}}_{{\rm{12}}} $

Could someone help me analyze this situation , I think that the conclusion in textbook is true but it is still fuzzy for me
Thank you in advance
 
though I can't post Latex truly , i guess you would know my confusion , please answer me as soon as possible

thank you :)
 
You must use [tex*] and [*/tex] (with out the *) on your latex code.
 
welcome to pf!

hi tukms! welcome to pf! :smile:

(try using the X2 icon just above the Reply box :wink:)

the important point in your attachment is "we assume that these forces lie along the line of separation of each pair of particles" …

so if the internal forces are F12 and F21, at positions r1 and r2,

then the total moment (about any origin) is r1 x F12 + r2 x F21 = (r1 - r2) x F12

since r1 - r2 is parallel to F12, that comes to zero :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K