Solving a Confusing Torque Problem: Lever Equilibrium in Top View

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mech King
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confusing Torque
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the challenges of calibrating a torque driver when the load is applied perpendicular to gravity, rather than parallel. It is clarified that while gravity is always present, it does not contribute to torque if the load is perpendicular, leading to potential instability in the lever system. For effective torque calibration, the load must be aligned parallel to gravity to create a counteracting torque. Suggestions include modifying the setup with mechanisms like pulleys to redirect the force. Ultimately, achieving equilibrium and effective torque measurement requires the load to be oriented correctly with respect to gravity.
Mech King
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I think i may be over analyzing this basic problem, but if i have a lever similar to that attached, and i apply a load at one end and a counter moment at the over end (at the pivot center) to balance the load then the system is in equilibrium.

Now if the load applied on the end of lever was not parrallel with gravity, but perpendicular to it, so the image attached became a tope view as opposed to a side view, then how do you quantify the torque, because although gravity is always present, it now won't be tending to push the load around anti-clockwise, so how can i equate the load to a force and resolve this problem? Clearly, if the attached image shows a top/plan view of the system then the lever will be easier to turn.

Can someone please help me understand my madness?

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • lever.png
    lever.png
    4.6 KB · Views: 465
Physics news on Phys.org
Mech King said:
Now if the load applied on the end of lever was not parrallel with gravity, but perpendicular to it, so the image attached became a tope view as opposed to a side view, then how do you quantify the torque, because although gravity is always present, it now won't be tending to push the load around anti-clockwise, so how can i equate the load to a force and resolve this problem? Clearly, if the attached image shows a top/plan view of the system then the lever will be easier to turn.

Okay, so what exactly is the problem? The force which is applied to the end of the lever is perpendicular to gravity. It exerts a torque about the pivot. And unless you want to consider a yanking of the lever due to gravity (a kind of cantilevered effect), gravity has no major role to play here, except enter the vertical equilibrium condition for the lever + pivot. That is, assuming that the vertical torque due to gravity about the pivot, is not allowed to bend/yank the road. If the rod can yank, then the problem is much more complicated because the rod won't be horizontal all the way from the pivot.
 
The way I see it if the picture presents a top down view then there is no force to counter the "counter torque" and the lever will simply start spinning in it's direction, constantly accelerating. The mass at the end of the lever will only matter as part of the overall mass of the system determining it's inertia.
 
Thanks for the reponses,

i basically am making a little torque driver calibration device (approximate) and thought it may be easier from an ergonomics point of view to have the calibration device sitting face up on a workbench surface, and then upon further investigtion i thought..."but gravity is not tending to turn the mass, so how can i use th,e set up to calibrate torque if there isn't any torque on the lever, just inertia"

The lever is rigid and sat in bearings, so there is no deflection, and friction can be ignored.

Would it only be possible to do this torque calibration set up if the load is parrallel and not perpendicular to gravity>?

Cheers again
 
"Would it only be possible to do this torque calibration set up if the load is parrallel and not perpendicular to gravity"

Yes, it has to be parallel to gravity or in other words the arrow on your picture has to point down so that the weight of the mass attempts to rotate the lever in the direction opposite to that of your torque.

If you want the lever to be horizontal you can add something to the design that will transfer the force exerted by the load changing it's direction, a rope and a pulley or something like that.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top