Is there torque involved in lifting a pot

  • Thread starter Thread starter ren0312
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lifting Torque
AI Thread Summary
Lifting a pot from table level to mouth level involves torque due to the body's mechanics. When seated without feet on the ground, lifting a heavy pot can cause the body to pitch forward, indicating a lack of leverage. The pot exerts torque on the body, making it challenging to lift without proper support. The forearms function as levers with the elbow acting as a pivot point, emphasizing the role of torque in lifting. Overall, torque is inherently involved in the mechanics of lifting heavy objects.
ren0312
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is there torque involved when you to lift a pot from table level to the level of your mouth. Because somebody (kaitlyn richelle) mentioned in her blog about lifting a pot and how she lacked torque.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Imagine sitting in a chair and lifting your feet off the ground. Now lift a 20lb. pot off the table (not sure why she's drinking from a plant pot, but that's her business).

Without your feet on the floor, you will pitch forward and the pot will crash back down on the table.

Though it's kind of more like you have no leverage, and it's the pot that applies torque to you.
 
I can't think of a way to lift the pot by hand without torque being involved somehow. It's the way your body works. Forearms are basically levers with a pivot at your elbow.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Work Lifting Things With and Without Torque
Replies
6
Views
2K
Torque with Infinity length can lift anything?
Replies
9
Views
2K
I What is the Purpose of Torque?
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Non-physicist needs your help torquing a nut!
Replies
9
Views
1K
How does water escape the pot?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Where is the centripetal force acting on mass M?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Conceptual questions about Angular Momentum Conservation and torque
Replies
2
Views
2K
Who Can Solve the Mystery of the True Torque?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Why is it so much easier to lift a spinning gyro than if stationary?
2
Replies
67
Views
23K
I Conservation of angular momentum during collisions
Replies
3
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top