My model of torque in a rod with mass

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on modeling torque in a non-massless rod affected by gravity. The user describes a method of subdividing the rod into infinitesimal pieces to calculate the torque generated by each piece due to gravity. The final torque calculation for a uniform 1kg rod of 10m length, with the pivot at one end, yields a torque of 49.1 Nm, matching results obtained from Maple software. The user seeks clarification on the justification for simplifying the torque calculation to the effect of the gravitational force acting at the center of gravity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of torque and its calculation in physics
  • Familiarity with the concept of center of gravity
  • Basic knowledge of calculus, particularly infinite sums
  • Experience with Maple software for mathematical modeling
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of torque in rigid body dynamics
  • Study the derivation of torque from distributed forces
  • Explore advanced topics in calculus related to infinite series
  • Learn about the application of Maple for physics simulations
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding torque calculations in non-massless objects and gravitational effects on rigid bodies.

Levis2
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
I've always seen attempting to create my own models in physics as a fun and enriching pastime, even though my models should come out wrong :) This time i have attempted to model the torque in a non-massless rod affected by gravity.

This expression is with the force of gravity acting perpendicular on the rod, but it can be easily modified for another angle of attack. What i imagined was a infinitesimally small subdivisioning (dunno if that's a word, I'm scandinavian:) of the rod. I also assumed that the density of the rod was uniform all over. Then i looked at each of the pieces, in order to determine the torque that was created by gravity from each "piece of mass". All the masses of the pieces are obviously equivalent, but each one is at a farther distance from the pivot point and thus produce a higher torque under the influence of gravity, so i ended up using an infinite sum, in order to describe it.

I imagined cutting the rod into n pieces. Then each would posses the mass of m/n, where m is the entire mass of the rod. Then of course the torque each piece generates is given my gm(r_i)/n, where r_i is the length that the given piece is away from the pivot point, which is ofcoure r_i=r/n*i, where i runs through the integers as one progresses from the pivot point to the end. I know this is confusing, but i ended up with this;

(Attachment of a screenshot, i am no good with latex :()

It is probably gibberish, but can you make any sense out of my thoughts? :)

EDIT: i added a poor drawing of the situation, i hope it helps .. :)
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2012-01-04 at 7.12.46 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2012-01-04 at 7.12.46 PM.png
    1.3 KB · Views: 563
  • Screen Shot 2012-01-04 at 7.57.01 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2012-01-04 at 7.57.01 PM.png
    12.8 KB · Views: 539
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have now studied the present material on this subject, and it seems that the torque at a given point in a rod created by gravity can be thought of as the torque from the entire gravitational force affecting the mass of the rod placed in it's center of gravity. This is not so obvious to me, and I'm not sure i understand why such a simplification can be justified??

In order to see if my model was correct, i did a calculation on a horizontal rod, with the axis of rotation in the left end, as my previous sketch. The rod has a mass of 1kg, and is 10m long. It is uniform, and has a center of gravity at 10m/2m=5m. So the torque created by gravity in the left most point of the rod is 1kg*9.82m/s^2*5=49.1 Nm.

I then used my model to see if i could achieve the same using my model, and the results from maple are attached as a screenshot;

As you can see, the results are exactly identical.. I would appreciate if someone is able to explain to exactly why it is, that such a simplification is possible? I don't see why my model can be simplified to that :)
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2012-01-04 at 11.43.27 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2012-01-04 at 11.43.27 PM.png
    3.1 KB · Views: 520

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K