Torque about an accelerating axis

AI Thread Summary
Torque calculations about an accelerating axis can be counterintuitive, especially when both the axis and the attached body are accelerating uniformly. In the case of a car in free fall, the torque on the doors remains constant despite their motion, as the vector OP does not change. However, the angular momentum increases due to the rising speed of the door's point P, leading to the conclusion that the doors will not swing shut because the car experiences an effective absence of gravity. When analyzing mechanical systems, one can either use a stationary frame with real forces or a non-inertial frame that incorporates fictitious forces to align with Newton's laws. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately assessing motion in various reference frames.
tachyontensor
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
How are torques computed about an axis when the axis (and the attached body) are both accelerating at the same rate? For example, if a car is in free fall with the doors open (with the rear end of the car pointing towards the ground) will the doors shut themselves due to torque? Or, is the torque zero because the axis and door(s) are moving uniformly?

Also, in a more general sense, if several objects are in the same accelerating reference frame, can a "pseudo" form of Newton's laws (adjusted for the fictitious forces) hold for all objects in the frame?

This isn't homework, just a curiosity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The torque about any point O due the force F acting through P is defined as OPXF. We use this all the time when studying the motion of wheels rolling down inclined planes etc. if O is the door hinge and P is any point on the door, then it may seem a bit counter intuitive to notice that the vector OP remains constant, since both P and O fall at the same rate, and therefore the torque is constant. However, the angular momentum about any instantaneously stationary horizontal axis passing through O is also increasing due to the increasing speed of the point P, and there is no contradiction.

The car door in your example will not swing shut since the whole car is in free fall, and effectively there is no gravity in the car frame.

In mechanical problems, in general we have to make one of the following choices:

1. Select an initial frame and consider only the “real” forces.
2. Select a non-inertial frame and consider not only the “real” forces, but suitably defined pseudo or fictitious forces.

In the falling car example, the addition of the force (–mg ) to a particle of mass m makes the frame compatible with Newton’s laws of motion. Another example is a rotating frame, where you have to take into account the centrifugal and the Coriolis forces, and then start to use Newton's laws again.
 
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