Quantifying Acceleration in Non-Perpendicular Torque Systems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the dynamics of torque in non-perpendicular systems, particularly the relationship between static and dynamic behavior when a body is distant from its rotational axis. The user seeks clarification on quantifying acceleration when additional torque is applied, noting that the gravitational force vector is not always perpendicular to the radius. There is a debate about the correctness of the torque expression C(θ) and its implications for maintaining constant acceleration. Participants emphasize the importance of a suitable motor and control system to achieve desired outcomes in torque management. Overall, a clear understanding of the forces involved and proper diagramming is recommended for resolving the confusion.
Andrea Vironda
Messages
69
Reaction score
3
Hi,
I'm making some confusion about statical and dynamic behavior.
if i have a body distant from the rotational axis, i have a static torque for maintaining it on position (i suppose ##\vec g \perp \vec r##).
But if a supply more torque i accellerate the body. How can i quantify this accelleration? it will be not constant because ##\vec g## is no more perpendicular to ##\vec r##.
i would obtain ##C(\theta)=mg(\theta)r+I\ddot \theta##. How can a motor mantain a constant accelleration?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Andrea Vironda said:
How can a motor mantain a constant accelleration

I don't understand the problem - a suitable choice of motor and control system will do anything that you want it to do .

Is your question really meant to be about how to determine the variable driving torque needed to maintain a constant angular acceleration ?
 
Last edited:
Nidum said:
I don't understand the problem - a suitable choice of motor and control system will do anything that you want it to do .

Is your question really meant to be about how determine the variable driving torque needed to maintain a constant angular acceleration ?
i would to know if my expression in ##C(\theta)## is correct
 
What do you intend your expression C(theta) to represent?

Where does a motor enter into the problem as originally described?
 
hi, ##C## is a torque, ##coppia## in italian language. It's the torque expression as ##f(\theta)##
 
You need to understand that g is not a function of theta; g is a constant. What you need is the component of g that acts perpendicular to the radius. Draw a diagram with labels and it should all become clear.
 
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?
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...
Back
Top