Timeline for Why do we use the lever arm concept?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2020 at 13:38 | comment | added | Bill N | And don't forget that some students might see the lever arm method as easier. Each student has a different perspective on the geometry. What's easy for you may be difficult for them, and vice versa. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 13:35 | comment | added | Bill N | "why do we insist" is a bit strong, don't you think? In fact, "I" don't insist, but I do explain the calculation of torques in a variety of ways: angle between line of action and position vector, perpen. component of force, AND perpendicular distance from line of action to basis point of calculation. All 3 must give the same answer. If you don't like the book's method, use what you like. But "we" don't "insist" on one particular method. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 12:46 | answer | added | John Alexiou | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 12:39 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 28, 2020 at 9:31 | answer | added | Eli | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 4:03 | comment | added | David White | When I was teaching physics to high school students, I taught them that you could use either method, and I favored taking the component of the force that was perpendicular to the lever arm. Are you teaching AP Physics 1? | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 3:12 | comment | added | DanDan面 | I guess there might be situations where the lever arm description may be more convenient. For instance, when showing that the angular momentum $\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{r}\times\mathbf{p}$ is conserved for a free particle, it's more convenient to use components of $\mathbf{r}$ instead of $\mathbf{p}$. But I do see your point. | |
| Oct 28, 2020 at 1:48 | history | asked | Elliot | CC BY-SA 4.0 |