Torque about an accelerating point

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on analyzing torque and angular acceleration in a pulley system, focusing on the implications of using different points for torque calculations. It highlights that when considering a point not at the mass center, one must account for non-inertial effects, leading to different moments of inertia and angular accelerations. The participants debate the correctness of torque equations derived from various reference points, emphasizing that the mass center remains the key reference for angular acceleration. The conversation also touches on the introduction of fictitious forces when analyzing torque from non-inertial frames. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately modeling the dynamics of the system.
xkcda
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Screenshot from 2023-05-06 23-47-56.png

The total force acting on the pulley is zero so:
F=mg+T1+T2 (1)Analyzing the torque and angular acceleration about the actual axis of rotation, the axle of the pulley, gives:
τnet=T1R−T2R=Iα (2)If we analyze about point P, the right edge of the pulley where T1 is applied, we get:
τnet=(F−mg)R−T2×2R=(I+mR2)α WRONG(3)Using Equation 1 to eliminate F−mg from Equation 3 gives:
τnet=T1R−T2R=(I+mR2)α WRONG(4)The net torque in Equations 2 and 4 is the same, but the moments of inertia are different so the angular accelerations are also different. Note that if we think of point P as attached to the right-hand string, if T1 ≠ T2 then it is accelerating.My question is if we think P as point fixed in space and not attached to to the right-hand string, then what will be the equation of torque about point P?

In the case of instantaneous axis of rotation, we say that the center of rotation is a point in space and does not undergo radial acceleration. So we think of it as an inertial frame of reference. So can't we analyze the torque about point P thinking that it not subject to any kind of acceleration.In that case we should get the actual torque about point P.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome, @xkcda !

The fact that I and m are given, suggests that T1 and T2 are not equal and that there is a unique angular acceleration of the pulley.

I believe that equation 4 is incorrect because the moment of inertia is incorrect.
Please, see:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#cmi
 
Last edited:
Is there a question to be answered or a task to be performed that relates to the diagram? This is not a forum for guessing games.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and erobz
xkcda said:

Torque about an accelerating point​

τnet=(F−mg)R−T2×2R=(I+mR2)α
Your title is the clue. If you take torques about an accelerating point which is not the mass centre then you need to consider the consequences of using a non-inertial frame.
As you noted, the mass centre is not accelerating here, so although you took torques about some other point the angular acceleration is still about the mass centre: I, not ##I+mR^2##.
Or, if you take a non-rotating frame moving with point P of the wheel as your reference frame, making P stationary, then you must introduce a virtual force to compensate for your non-inertial frame. On, the wheel, that will be ##mR\alpha##, upwards.
##\tau_{net}=(F−mg)R−T_2\cdot 2R+mR^2\alpha=(I+mR^2)\alpha##.
If you take a rotating frame moving with P, the reasoning may be different again, but will lead to the same equation.
 
haruspex said:
Your title is the clue. If you take torques about an accelerating point which is not the mass centre then you need to consider the consequences of using a non-inertial frame.
As you noted, the mass centre is not accelerating here, so although you took torques about some other point the angular acceleration is still about the mass centre: I, not ##I+mR^2##.
Or, if you take a non-rotating frame moving with point P of the wheel as your reference frame, making P stationary, then you must introduce a virtual force to compensate for your non-inertial frame. On, the wheel, that will be ##mR\alpha##, upwards.
##\tau_{net}=(F−mg)R−T_2\cdot 2R+mR^2\alpha=(I+mR^2)\alpha##.
If you take a rotating frame moving with P, the reasoning may be different again, but will lead to the same equation.
Can you describe me the details about that pseudo force please?Did you apply ##mR\alpha## along P or along the center of mass?
 
Last edited:
xkcda said:
Can you describe me the details about that pseudo force please?Did you apply ##mR\alpha## along P or along the center of mass?
The "inertial force" is taken to act on each element of mass directly, in proportion to its mass. So here it would be taken to act on the mass centre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top