My model of torque in a rod with mass

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on modeling the torque in a non-massless rod affected by gravity, emphasizing the author's approach of subdividing the rod into infinitesimal pieces to analyze torque contributions from each segment. The author assumes uniform density and calculates the torque generated by each piece based on its distance from the pivot point, ultimately leading to an infinite sum expression. After comparing results from their model with established physics principles, the author finds that the torque can be simplified to consider the entire gravitational force acting at the rod's center of gravity. The author seeks clarification on why this simplification is valid, as it is not immediately clear to them. The exploration of these concepts highlights the interplay between theoretical modeling and practical application in physics.
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: 534
  • 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: 512
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: 496
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...
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?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top