Will a free falling rod rotate or not?

AI Thread Summary
A free-falling rod does not rotate when its center of gravity is chosen as the rotational center because there is no net moment acting on it. If a different point is selected as the rotational center, the analysis becomes more complex, but it can still be shown that the rod will not rotate under certain conditions. The discussion highlights that the center of gravity is typically chosen for simplicity in calculations. The concept of net torque and the effects of fictitious forces in accelerating bodies are also addressed. Ultimately, the choice of rotational center can vary, but the outcome regarding rotation remains consistent.
peterpang1994
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Will a free falling rod rotate ?

When we consider a bicycle is turning on a flat plane, we know that there is friction, which provide centripetal force on the bicycle. And we know that the bicycle is no longer perpendicular to the flat plane so as to reach equilibrium. What I want to ask why we always choose the center of gravity of the bicycle be the rotational center. Just like when a rod is free falling and parallel to the ground, if I choose the center of gravity as the rotational center the rod will not rotate, because there is no net moment acting on the rod. But if I choose the points other than the center of gravity as the rotational center, there would be net moment due to gravity and the rod will rotate. Will the rod rotate or not? Why we always choose center of gravity as the rotational center?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org


peterpang1994 said:
And we know that the bicycle is no longer perpendicular to the flat plane so as to reach equilibrium.

So no one rides a bike upright?
 


peterpang1994 said:
But if I choose the points other than the center of gravity as the rotational center, there would be net moment due to gravity and the rod will rotate. Will the rod rotate or not? Why we always choose center of gravity as the rotational center?

We choose the center of gravity for simplicity. If you use another point in the body for the center of rotation, you have to use the parallel axis theorem.
 
But when I choose the other point as rotational centre and chage the moment of inertia by parallel axis therom, there are probabilities for the rod to rotate or not.
 


peterpang1994 said:
if I choose the center of gravity as the rotational center the rod will not rotate, because there is no net moment acting on the rod.
Ok
But if I choose the points other than the center of gravity as the rotational center, there would be net moment due to gravity and the rod will rotate.
There would NOT be net moment.
Imagine a massless rod AB. On the extreme B of the rod let's put a weight.
Let's put the rod horizontal and let it fall.
As said before, if I choose B as center of rotation, the rod will not rotate.
If I choose A, the forces acting of B will be mg pointing downwards, and ma pointing upwards. Of course a=g
That's because the body is accelerating, and with accelerating bodies you should always consider the fictious force ma.
Again, no net torque.
Will the rod rotate or not?
Of course not. The result must be the same regardless the method you use to study it.
Why we always choose center of gravity as the rotational center?

As you see, you can choose any point you like.
 
Thank you very much .In the case of bicycles, how should I consider the net moment acting on the bicycle if I choose the point where the friction and the normal reaction acting on.
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top