Why is Torque the Cross Product Between r and F?

AI Thread Summary
Torque is defined as the cross product of the position vector (r) and force vector (F), represented by T = r x F, where the magnitude of torque is influenced by the angle (t) between these vectors. The formula aligns with the intuitive understanding that greater force or distance from the pivot increases the tendency of an object to rotate, with torque being zero at t = 0 and maximum at t = 90 degrees. The discussion raises questions about the nature of torque at angles between these extremes and whether the sine relationship is necessary, suggesting that only the perpendicular component of force contributes to rotation. Examples illustrate that the torque produced by different handle lengths and angles can still yield the same rotational effect, reinforcing the importance of the perpendicular force component. Ultimately, the relationship between torque and angular momentum clarifies the underlying physics, confirming that the cross product accurately describes torque dynamics.
kevinze
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Examine T= r x F (cross product),
where |T|=|r||F| sin t, where t is the angle between r and F

The intuitive idea of torque (let's only consider torque about the pivot for now) is that the stronger the force or the further away you are from the pivot point, the more the object will TEND to rotate.

The cross product formula above does match this intuitive idea. For example, larger force, the magnitude of the torque really does increase. It also matches the observation that no torque is generated when t is zero, and max torque when t is at a 90 degree angle.

My question is, what about the angles in between? Using the formula, does this really match with what nature is telling us? Does the formula truly reflect the intuitive idea of torque in terms of the tendency of making an object rotate? I don’t see a reason why it has to obey the sine relationship/curve other than the fact that at t =0 and t=90 we see min and max respectively. For example, why can't it be a linear relationship for angles in between?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
think of the sin(t) as a means to decompose the F vector into two components:

F sin(t) and F cos(t) where F sin(t) is perpendicular to R and F cos(t) is parallel to R then you can see that the F cos(t) doesn't have any effect on the rotation whereas F sin(t) does.
 
kevinze said:
My question is, what about the angles in between? Using the formula, does this really match with what nature is telling us? Does the formula truly reflect the intuitive idea of torque in terms of the tendency of making an object rotate? I don’t see a reason why it has to obey the sine relationship/curve other than the fact that at t =0 and t=90 we see min and max respectively. For example, why can't it be a linear relationship for angles in between?

Consider a long vertical shaft, like the drill shaft on an oil rig.

Now weld two handles on that shaft.

The first handle is one meter long and extends horizontally.

The second handle is 1.4 meters long and extends at a 45 degree angle diagonally upward so that its end is also about one meter away from the shaft.

The welds are solid and the handles strong.

Would you agree that pushing on the end of either handle provides the same rotational torque as pushing on the other?

Or would you claim that pushing on the longer handle provides only 70% as much torque as pushing on the shorter handle?
 
jedishrfu said:
think of the sin(t) as a means to decompose the F vector into two components:

F sin(t) and F cos(t) where F sin(t) is perpendicular to R and F cos(t) is parallel to R then you can see that the F cos(t) doesn't have any effect on the rotation whereas F sin(t) does.

Thanks this was really helpful in seeing what was really happening. Yes so we indeed only consider the perpendicular component of the force which is accounted for in the cross product formula. There's no way it can be a linear relationship.

Thanks again :).
 
Once you have a notion of angular momentum, the relationship between that and torque is clear.

If you accept that \ell = r \times p and that dp/dt = F (force is the time derivative of momentum), then the time derivative of angular momentum is

\frac{d\ell}{dt} = \frac{dr}{dt} \times p + r \times \frac{dp}{dt} = v \times p + r \times F

Of course, v \times p = 0, and we get d\ell/dt = r \times F. We call this torque.
 
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