Trouble understanding the answer to this torque question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cornbreadddd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Torque
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding torque in the context of rotational equilibrium. The correct calculation of torque involves measuring from the axis of rotation to the center of mass, as this is where the weight acts. The confusion stems from the belief that the entire length of the board should be considered, but only the distance to the center of mass is relevant for torque calculations. The principle of static equilibrium states that as long as the sum of torques is zero, the specific point of measurement does not affect the outcome. Ultimately, the center of mass serves as the effective point for applying the weight of the board without creating additional torque.
Cornbreadddd
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Screen%20Shot%202018-03-31%20at%2012.17.21%20PM.png
[/B]

Homework Equations



The relevant equations are obviously going to be the rotational equilibrium expressions regarding balancing clockwise and counterclockwise movement as it relates to T = Fx lever-arm.

The Attempt at a Solution



First...here is the answer that the back of the book gives:
[/B]
  1. "B is correct. The axis of rotation is the point where the rope attached to the board. The hanging weight creates a counter-clockwise torque equal to 3 kg x 0.2 m. The weight of the board creates a clockwise torque at the distance from the rope attachment to the board's center of mass, which is 0.3 m. The net torque is zero, so the clockwise torque equals the counterclockwise torque, so 3 kg x 0.2 m = 0.3 m times the weight of the board. Therefore, the weight of the board is 2 kg."
My question is...why is it that when calculating the torque due to the weight of the board...you measure only to center of mass, especially since there is no fulcrum there or anything. Why wouldn't you measure all the way until the end of the board (0.8m instead of 0.3m) and have your equation be:

(0.8 x mass of board) = (0.2 x mass of board) + (0.2 x 3kg) ----> mass = 1kg

If the answer in the book is correct...and only that extra 0.3 meters between the rope (center of rotation) and center of mass is relevant...then how come the other 0.5 meters to the right of the board doesn't throw everything out of equilibrium...I mean it is extra weight after all, right?

It's clear I have some sort of fundamental conceptual hole in my understanding of torque as it pertains to equilibrium, but I'm having trouble filling that hole in...any help would be very appreciated, thanks!
 

Attachments

  • Screen%20Shot%202018-03-31%20at%2012.17.21%20PM.png
    Screen%20Shot%202018-03-31%20at%2012.17.21%20PM.png
    45.8 KB · Views: 1,641
Physics news on Phys.org
Cornbreadddd said:
My question is...why is it that when calculating the torque due to the weight of the board...you measure only to center of mass, especially since there is no fulcrum there or anything.
The additional force of gravity (not shown in the picture) acts at the center of mass because it is an external force. Also note that if the sum of the torques is zero because the object is in static equilibrium, it doesn't matter about what point you calculate torques.
 
Cornbreadddd said:
(0.8 x mass of board) = (0.2 x mass of board) + (0.2 x 3kg) ----> mass = 1kg
The correct way to do it this way would be:
$$(0.2 \times 3) + (0.1 \times 0.2m) = (0.4 \times 0.8m)$$
Where you separate the beam into two masses:
  1. One 20% of the total beam mass ##m## where its center of gravity is at 0.1 m of the rope;
  2. One 80% of the total beam mass ##m## where its center of gravity is at 0.4 m of the rope.
You can also divide the beam into 10 smaller masses if you want:
$$(0.2 \times 3) + (0.15 \times 0.1m) + (0.05 \times 0.1m) = (0.05 \times 0.1m) + (0.15 \times 0.1m) + (0.25 \times 0.1m) + (0.35 \times 0.1m) + (0.45 \times 0.1m) + (0.55 \times 0.1m) + (0.65 \times 0.1m) + (0.75 \times 0.1m)$$
The answer is still the same. Note how the 2 masses on the left side are counterbalanced by their two similar masses, at similar distances, on the right side, thus having no effects on the resultant torque.

You could of course repeat the exercise by dividing the beam into 100s or 1000s of smaller masses and the results would still be the same. That is what a center of gravity defines: A equivalent point where the total weight can be applied without creating any resultant torque.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Tom.G
Wow, thanks so much! I'm getting closer to having a good intuition of it now. Since the force of gravity acts at the center of mass, with such a magnitude that the system is in equilibrium, it doesn't matter where the torque is calculated.

Thank you again! That was very helpful and kind.
 
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 .
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...
Thread 'A bead-mass oscillatory system problem'
I can't figure out how to find the velocity of the particle at 37 degrees. Basically the bead moves with velocity towards right let's call it v1. The particle moves with some velocity v2. In frame of the bead, the particle is performing circular motion. So v of particle wrt bead would be perpendicular to the string. But how would I find the velocity of particle in ground frame? I tried using vectors to figure it out and the angle is coming out to be extremely long. One equation is by work...
Back
Top