Looking for proof that a free rigid body will rotate about its CM

AI Thread Summary
A free rigid body subjected to a torque-producing force will exhibit two primary behaviors: its center of mass (CM) moves in a straight line, and the body rotates about an axis through its CM. This behavior is derived from the conservation of total linear momentum and can be demonstrated through the equations of motion for the system. The discussion emphasizes the need for formal proofs in mechanics literature, as many existing texts do not adequately address these concepts. Additionally, the conversation touches on the relationship between linear and angular motion, highlighting the importance of external forces and torques. Overall, the inquiry seeks comprehensive resources to substantiate these principles in rigid body dynamics.
scoomer
Messages
18
Reaction score
4
Can anyone recommend a textbook or web paper that proves that, in general, a free rigid body will act in the following way when the body is subjected to a force (or impulse) that is torque producing:
a) The center of mass (CM) moves in a straight line.
b) The body rotates about an axis through its CM.
(By "free" I mean unconstrained.)

It seems intuitive and many textbooks state the above. But the ones I've looked at don't seem to present a proof.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
scoomer said:
Can anyone recommend a textbook or web paper that proves that, in general, a free rigid body will act in the following way when the body is subjected to a force (or impulse) that is torque producing:
a) The center of mass (CM) moves in a straight line.
b) The body rotates about an axis through its CM.
(By "free" I mean unconstrained.)
It follows from the conservation of total linear momentum, if you consider that the body consist of many small masses, each with it's own linear momentum. I don't have a formal proof, but that is the line it would along.
 
I also missed this very important concepts from mechanics books. So I worked it out by myself. I define coordinates (all relevant coordinates are vectors):
r_i=r_c+r_i'
v_i=v_c+v_i'=v_c+\omega\times r_i'
I suppose it is possible to show that the necessary vector \omega corresponds to the angular velocity about just any axis. I use center of mass coordinates since later I will need \sum m_ir_i'=0.
-----------------------------
Now
\sum F_i=\sum m_ia_i
\sum F_i=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\sum m_iv_i
\sum F_i^\text{ext}=\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\left((\sum m_i)v_c\right)
F^\text{ext}=Ma_c
On the LHS I used that internal forces cancel F_{ij}=-F_{ji} and on the RHS I used that \sum m_iv_i'=\omega\times\sum m_i r_i'=0. Now you have the linear law of motion.
--------------------------
For the angular part
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\sum m_ir_i'\times v_i'=\sum m_i r_i'\times a_i'=\sum m_i r_i'\times (a_i-a_c)=\sum r_i'\times F_i=\sum r_i'\times F_i^\text{ext}
The internal forces cancel again since force are along the line of action r_i\times F_{ij}+r_j\times F_{ji}=\Delta r\times F_{ij}=0. So, the torque from external forces about the center of mass is equal to the angular momentum about the center of mass.

With some additional ideas one can show that therefore in the absence of external forces the center of mass velocity and the angular velocity are constant.
 
Last edited:
thank you, that was very helpful
 
Actually my derivation doesn't specifically address the rigid body (so I don't need \omega). It is for a general set of interacting particles.

That's where I believe conservation of angular momentum comes from. At least I haven't met anyone who convincingly can use Noethers theorem, without including lots of hidden assumptions :smile:
 
what?!
has my reply been deleted again..?
anyway... can you please prov the second law of Newton for rotation?
thanks :D
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top