Understanding Torque and Reference Frames in Rotational Motion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding torque and reference frames in rotational motion. When a force is applied to one end of a rod anchored at the other, the torque calculated from the pivot point is positive if it induces clockwise rotation. Changing the reference frame to anchor the opposite end results in the same torque magnitude but a negative sign, reflecting the change in perspective. The conversation emphasizes the importance of consistently defining positive and negative directions for torque calculations. Overall, the principles of torque remain consistent across different reference frames as long as the conventions are applied correctly.
tomizzo
Messages
113
Reaction score
2
Hello,

I have a question regarding the concept of torque and reference frames.

Say for example I have a rod of length L and that the rod has it's right side anchored to act as a pivot point. Now let's say that I input a force on the left side of the bar in an upward direction. Assuming that positive torque corresponds to clockwise rotation, the torque is the force x L (and is positive) with respect to the right pivot point..

Now let's say I do this same experiment, but this time, I want to use a frame of reference such that the left side of the rod appears to be anchored. From what I can deduct, the torque as seen by this virtual pivot point will have the same torque magnitude as the last experiment, except it will be negative now...

Is my reasoning correct? I'm kind of just curious and don't know if phenomenon has a specific name.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct in the sense that as long as you consistently designate one direction as positive and the other as negative the results will be consistent up to that change in sign. Usually one designates counter-clockwise rotation as positive (that is, opposite of your choice above) since this corresponds to the right-hand rule [1], but that is just a practical convention that gives a consistent relation between linear direction of the axis with direction of rotation around those axis.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule
 
The motion of the bar from the point of view of the unanchored end will also be clockwise rotation. So, the fictitious torque in this frame will have the magnitude and direction as the true torque in the original frame.
 
Hi Perok,

I can't visualize how the torque would be in the same direction... I keep picturing the bar would have to be rotated counter clockwise to keep the left end in place for our reference frame. Could you explain further?
 
If the bar starts horizontal and you rotate the left end clockwise by 90°, then the left end is above the right end.

If you imagine the left end is fixed, and rotate the right end clockwise by 90°, then again the left end is above the right. Same as before.

I'm not sure what you're picturing.
 

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

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?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Writing an equation for torque around an arbitrary point on a body
Replies
6
Views
818
B Question about the definition of Torque Equilibrium
Replies
14
Views
733
I Reference frames in terms of homogenity/isotropy
Replies
18
Views
2K
I Where is the centripetal force acting on mass M?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Moment of inertia where mass and torque are at a different positions
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
I Conservation of angular momentum during collisions
Replies
3
Views
3K
I Using reference frames for derivation of Lagrangian
Replies
25
Views
2K
Why Doesn't the Ball Rotate When Hit by a Pivoting Rod?
Replies
30
Views
3K
I What is the Purpose of Torque?
Replies
7
Views
2K
I PIGA: Pendulous Integrating Gyroscopic Accelerometer
Replies
0
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top