Help me analyze the situation of torque

  • Thread starter Thread starter tukms
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torque
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the textbook conclusion that the net internal torque equals zero, akin to Newton's third law. The user questions how torque, defined as r × F, can lead to this conclusion when considering internal forces F21 and F12. A key point raised is that the internal forces are assumed to act along the line of separation between particles, leading to a total moment that results in zero torque. The clarification emphasizes that since the vector difference r1 - r2 is parallel to the force F12, the total moment cancels out. This analysis helps resolve the user's uncertainty about the textbook's assertion.
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:
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top