Torque Equation about a point other than point of rotation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of the torque equation when calculating angular acceleration about a point other than the axis of rotation. It highlights the importance of the Parallel Axis Theorem for determining the moment of inertia about different axes. Concerns are raised regarding the consistency of angular acceleration values when measured from non-rotational points, as all points on a body share the same angular velocity and acceleration about the actual axis of rotation. The conversation also notes that for rolling bodies, linear momentum must be considered, indicating the need for additional equations. Overall, the torque equation's applicability beyond the axis of rotation remains a complex topic requiring careful consideration of fundamental principles.
Ahsan Khan
Messages
270
Reaction score
5
Hello all,

These days I am studying rotation and rolling of bodies. We know a body can be made to rotate about any point. Let's assume that an external force is acting on the rotating body fixed about the point of rotation, and this force made the body rotates faster that is its torque produces an angular acceleration in the body. And the calculation of angular acceleration(about the point of rotation) is easy to calculate using torque equation which says torque(in magnitude) equals magnitude of moment of inertia(about point of rotation) times angular acceleration of body about point of rotation (in magnitude).

I wonder if the torque equation work if I choose to quantify torque about some (new) point other than the point about which the body is actually rotating and plug it in, to find the angular acceleration about that new point? I mean do torque equation remains same about any general point or in Physics do we always need to use torque equation only about the point about which the body is actually rotating?

Regards
Thanks a bunch :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you need is the Parallel Axis Theorem to help you (here) it will tell you the Moment of Inertia about any axis parallel to the one you start with through the CM. Then you find the value of torque round that axis and Bob's your Uncle.
 
sophiecentaur said:
What you need is the Parallel Axis Theorem to help you (here) it will tell you the Moment of Inertia about any axis parallel to the one you start with through the CM. Then you find the value of torque round that axis and Bob's your Uncle.

I have no problem in using in parallel axis theorm, however what I fear is that taking torque( F* perpendicular distance) and angular acceleration about a point other than the axis of rotation, would make equation inconsistent, since(as what I am thinking) the angular acceleration of the different points of the body will not come same and uniform. I am saying this based on the basic fundamentals which I study in the beginning of the lesson which says all points of the body will have the same angular velocity and same angular acceleration (if it exist)about the axis of rotation but angular velocity and angular acceleration of different points of the body will have different values if they are measured not about the actual point (or axis) of rotation.
So their is problem: in torque equation which points angular acceleration should we use as the angular acceleration the different points is different.

Thanks
 
Angular acceleration of the body as well as its angular velocity do not depend on a point of the body. There are two commonly used versions of
torque equation. Let a point ##A## be either a fixed point of the body or its center of mass then
$$J_A\dot{\boldsymbol\omega}+\boldsymbol\omega\times J_A\boldsymbol \omega=\boldsymbol M_A\qquad (*)$$
here ##J_A## is the inertia tensor about the point ##A## and ##\boldsymbol M_A## is the torque about the point ##A##. Formula (*) does not hold for arbitrary point ##A##
 
Last edited:
ovais said:
I have no problem in using in parallel axis theorm, however what I fear is that taking torque( F* perpendicular distance) and angular acceleration about a point other than the axis of rotation, would make equation inconsistent, since(as what I am thinking) the angular acceleration of the different points of the body will not come same and uniform. I am saying this based on the basic fundamentals which I study in the beginning of the lesson which says all points of the body will have the same angular velocity and same angular acceleration (if it exist)about the axis of rotation but angular velocity and angular acceleration of different points of the body will have different values if they are measured not about the actual point (or axis) of rotation.
So their is problem: in torque equation which points angular acceleration should we use as the angular acceleration the different points is different.

Thanks
If there's rolling then you need to consider the linear momentum too. But I think that just requires another equation.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top