Rotational Motion - Does a Body Rotate Forever After Torque is Applied?

AI Thread Summary
When torque is applied to a body, it can cause rotation, but once the torque ceases, the body's behavior depends on its center of mass (C.M.) and the axis of rotation. If the rotation axis does not pass through the C.M., the body will continue to have a constant C.M. velocity alongside its angular velocity, which does not violate Newton's First Law. The discussion also highlights that removing a fixed rotation axis while stopping torque affects the body’s motion, emphasizing that the concept of a rotation axis is not fundamental in rigid body mechanics. Ultimately, if no external forces act on the body, its angular momentum remains constant, allowing for changes in angular velocity through orthogonal components. The complexities of rotational motion and energy conservation are crucial to understanding these dynamics.
vaishakh
Messages
334
Reaction score
0
This is the doubt that troubled me when the chapter of rotational motion started. If torque is applied on a body for sometime and then the torque is stopped, then will the body continue to rotate for ever?

Yes - coz the rotational Kinetic energy Iw^2 must be conserved since no mommentum is transferred to the system.

No - coz there is no force for the centre of mass of the body to accelerate. I mean in the given condition it could be that rotational axis is not a centroidal one.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that a rigid body can be regarded as rotating about ANY of its constituent points with the the same angular velocity as about any other point.
Thus, when the applied torque stops, and the rotation axis does not go through C.M (i.e, non-zero C.M-velocity), it just means that your body will have a non-zero C.M (constant) velocity in addition to its constant angular velocity.
Its kinetic energy will be: \frac{1}{2}(mv_{C.M}^{2}+I_{C.M}\omega^{2})
 
Then doesn't that oppose Newton's First law of motion as the body is accelerating and no force being applied on it?
 
Whenever did it's C.M ever accelerate after the torque stops?
 
I am talking about the radial acceleration. But now I pointed out the defect. Yes your points helped me a lot. The axis which could be external and fixed applies a normal force on the object which leads it to be in rotation. If such an axis does not exist then the object would decide to rotate on centre. Now another doubt -

What would happen if such a fixed axis on which the body is rotating is removed, alongwith stopping to apply torque?
 
Remember that the concept of "rotation axis" isn't a fundamental concept in rigid body mechanics; in contrast to angular velocity and C.M velocity (not to mention the concepts of angular&linear momentum).

Don't bother about it overmuch.

Just a correction to my former post:
If no external forces acts upon a body, then its angular momentum with respect to its C.M remains constant, and we should perhaps better write the rotational part of the body's kinetic energy as \frac{1}{2}{\vec{S}}\cdot\vec{\omega} where \vec{S} denotes the angular momentum
Thus, since the C.M. velocity is constant as well, it follows that conservation of energy yields \vec{S}\cdot\frac{d\vec{\omega}}{dt}=0,
i.e, the angular velocity itself is allowed to change by an addition of a vectorial component orthogonal to the angular momentum.
 
Last edited:
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