What causes rotation, a couple or a moment? (conceptual)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the physical significance of moments and couples in causing rotation. It explores whether rotation is solely due to a couple or if moments have real implications in physical scenarios. When a force is applied to one end of a rod in space, it causes both linear and rotational acceleration, depending on the force's direction relative to the center of mass. The conversation also addresses how forces at a pivot point generate torque while appearing to cancel each other out, raising questions about the actual mechanics involved. Overall, the participants seek clarity on the relationship between applied forces, moments, and the resulting motion of objects.
Sarin
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Does a moment have any real (physical) significance or is it just a definition/ an aid to understand and calculate a couple. Is it that the rotation is actually caused by a couple!

I know we can resolve a force causing a moment about a point into a couple and an equal force acting at that point, but what i want to know is how does this actually happen in a real world scenario.

Also,
Say if there was a body (an extended bar or rod) in space so that no force would act on its centre of mass, then if a force F was applied on one of its ends what would happen and why?

forgive me if the question sounds stupid, but this concept has ben bugging me for a very long time now!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sarin said:
Say if there was a body (an extended bar or rod) in space so that no force would act on its centre of mass, then if a force F was applied on one of its ends what would happen and why?
The object would undergo a linear acceleration per m\vec a=\vec F and would undergo a rotational acceleration per \mathbf I \,\dot{\vec\omega} = \vec r \times \vec F - \vec{\omega}\times (\mathbf I \,\vec{\omega}) .
 
D H said:
The object would undergo a linear acceleration per m\vec a=\vec F and would undergo a rotational acceleration per \mathbf I \,\dot{\vec\omega} = \vec r \times \vec F - \vec{\omega}\times (\mathbf I \,\vec{\omega}) .

In words, it's because you apply a force "on" the COM ie. linear acceleration, but a the same time, you apply a torque about the COM ie. rotational acceleration (unless the force is applied directly on the COM, then it's just linear).
 
_DJ_british_? said:
(unless the force is applied directly on the COM, then it's just linear).
A force doesn't need to be applied directly on the CoM (center of mass) to get pure translation. It just needs to be directed "in line" with the CoM. For example, in the case of a force applied at the end of a rod, there is no torque on the rod if the force is directed toward or away from the center of the rod (i.e., if the force is collinear with the rod).
 
Sarin said:
Does a moment have any real (physical) significance or is it just a definition/ an aid to understand and calculate a couple. Is it that the rotation is actually caused by a couple!

I know we can resolve a force causing a moment about a point into a couple and an equal force acting at that point, but what i want to know is how does this actually happen in a real world scenario.

These different views are equally real and produce the same answer. In many cases you can observe the cause of a force producing a moment, so it's natural to view that force as the reality. But in other cases exactly the same result could be produced by a combination of a torque and a linear force.
 
DH, DJ british ? and Haruspex, thanks!
lol, and DH i think DJ british meant to say the same thing when he said "directly on the COM", please dun give him a hard time, haha.

OK i had been pondering over thisthe whole day, looked up some literature and i think i figured it out, one can even deduce this from the derivation of the "position of COM of a system".
Its just that it is very hard to imagine/ visualize the COM taking a translatory path (motion) when the force is not even acting on it/ directed towards it, i.e offset.

Anyways, I have another problem: a free body, say a bar (yet again), spins about the COM; but if we pivot a body at a point, then why does a force act on the pivot point simultaneously as a couple is generated.

I know one may argue since the forces are equal and opposite on the pivot point, they are as good as non existent (they cancel out each other), therefore it is the same thing. I know that!
I wan't to know how it happens in actuality, i.e if you pin a rod at one of it points, how is that point going to be under the influence of a force.

i know again a stupid question, my apologies.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top