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.
 
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...
Back
Top