0
$\begingroup$

Can r just be the distance from an object center of mass to the axis of rotation?

If not, it will be very hard to calculate r for things that are not particles, which doesn't exist in real life.

Like here: enter image description here

I am assuming that my book uses the distance from the center of the perfect sphere to to the axis of rotation. When the radius of rotation is small and close to the radius of the sphere, can you still take the distance from the center as r and ignore the mass of other parts of the sphere?

Also does the position vector along r have to perpendicular to the Angular acceleration vector?

So like if a problem just give you the acceleration which however is not tangent to the circular path of a rotating object, you have to ask for angle to find the component that is tangent to the path and perpendicular to r.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This is an application of $\sigma=I\alpha$: torque equals inertial moment times angular acceleration, here with $I=mr^2$. In reality, $I$ will take on form and value on a case-by-case basis. $\endgroup$ – Gert Nov 29 '15 at 14:08
0
$\begingroup$

Yes, the distance between the axis of rotation and the center of mass is taken into consideration when talking about r. The tangential acceleration is always perpendicular to r. If however a force is applied at an angle to the system, the angle will have to be taken into consideration and we will consider the part of the force perpendicular to r. The angular acceleration vector however is perpendicular to the plane of rotation and not r.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The torque and angular acceleration are related by the moment of inertia. For a general body with an extended mass distribution, the moment of inertia is given by an integral: $$ I = \iiint r^2\, \rho(\vec r) \;\mathrm dV, $$ where $\rho(\vec r)$ is the volumetric mass density and $r$ is the (cylindrical) distance to the axis of rotation.

For bodies that are localised in confined regions, the factor of $r^2$ can be factored out, since it takes basically the same value throughout the integral. The remaining integral gives simply the mass, and the formula reduces to the $I=mr^2$ in your question.

However, for general bodies, you just have to integrate.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.