What is the direction of torque when n is not perpendicular to r?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition of torque when the unit vector n is not perpendicular to the position vector r. The formula for torque is given as n.(r×F), which results in a scalar and does not indicate direction. When n is not perpendicular to r, the direction of torque can still be determined by the vector cross product r×F. It is clarified that the torque about an axis is essentially the component of torque along that axis. Understanding this relationship helps clarify the direction of torque in various scenarios.
Aziza
Messages
189
Reaction score
1
My book defines the general formula for torque as:

n.(r×F), where . means dot product, n is a unit vector along the line about which you are taking the torque, F is the force acting at some point, and r is the vector from the line to the point at which the force acts. So I know that when the line about which you are taking the torque is perpendicular to r, then the torque is defined as r×F, so it has a direction perpendicular to r and F.

However, what would be the direction of the torque if n is not perpendicular to r? n.(r×F) does not reveal the direction since it is just a scalar. Would the direction still be just r×F in this general case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nvm i think i just answered my question...if you just consider the torque about each axis then its obvious that the direction of the torque is just the direction of r×F
 
Hi Aziza! :smile:

Yes, what your book defines as the torque about an axis is really the component of the torque along that axis. :wink:
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top