0
$\begingroup$

There are two torque equations :

$$\tau = I \alpha \tag{1}$$ $$\tau = F r \tag{2}$$

In the second equation, we imagine that $F$ is applied at $90°$, and that $I = k m r^2$. ($k$ is the constant responsible for the shape and the axis)

Then by equating those two formulas, we can get that: $$\alpha = \frac{k \omega}{t}.$$ But change in $\omega$ over time without any constant is $\alpha$ already. Why these formulas do not work together?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi, I got $\vec{F} \times \vec{r} = km | \vec{r} |^2 \vec{\alpha}$ from your explaination. Where did $\omega, t$ come from? $\endgroup$ – Thormund May 16 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ Because torque is the change in angular momentum over time. or the alpha is omega over time. so T = (I * omega) / time = I * alpha. $\endgroup$ – GameOver May 16 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ Did you mean the time derivative of the angular velocity vector? $\endgroup$ – Thormund May 16 at 12:23
  • $\begingroup$ Of angular momentum vector $\endgroup$ – GameOver May 17 at 8:07
  • $\begingroup$ Even so, I'm still getting $| \vec{\alpha} | = \frac{1}{kmr^2} | \vec{F} \times \vec{r} | \not\Rightarrow \alpha = \frac{k\omega}{t}$. Can you please show your derivation properly. $\endgroup$ – Thormund May 17 at 11:12
1
$\begingroup$

Both the equations are completely consistent with each other. Equating both the equations (assuming that $F$ is the only force acting on the body, thus we can use $F=ma$)

$$Fr=I\alpha\Longrightarrow mar=kmr^2 \alpha\Longrightarrow \boxed{a=kr\alpha}$$

This equation is true for any general body as long as there's only one force acting at a distance $r$ from the center of mass and acting perpendicular to the line joining the center of mass and the point of application of the force.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ How can it be k * r * alpha? If this is a cylinder spinning around its axis then k = 0.5. So how can acceleration be the half of r *alpha? $\endgroup$ – GameOver May 16 at 12:04
  • $\begingroup$ @GameOver In a rolling cylinder, there is also friction and $F$ isn't the only force. If you would have pulled a cylinder in space (where there would be no other force), then my $kr\alpha$ will be definitely equal to $a$. $\endgroup$ – user258881 May 16 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ But k depends on the shape and the axis of rotation. k is the constant in moment of inertia. I do not think it is affected by weather you rotate it in vacuum or on earth. So k of any cylinder rotating around its axis will be 0.5, but the acceleration of that cylinder is not the half of its rotational acceleration times radius. $\endgroup$ – GameOver May 17 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ @GameOver $k$ will be the same in both the places, however the relation between $a$ and $\alpha$ will be different depending on the friction acting on the body. In the ground case (with friction), $a=r\alpha$. In the space case, $a=kr\alpha$. $\endgroup$ – user258881 May 17 at 8:36
  • $\begingroup$ Are we referring to an acceleration of a point of the object? If so, then traveled circumference is 2piR, and by doing some math we get that omega * R = velocity, thus the same with acceleration. So there is no k in there. If we are referring to the acceleration of a body as a whole, then the linear body acceleration in space or in air of the body is zero, so it is also not kR*alpha. What do I keep missing in there? $\endgroup$ – GameOver May 17 at 13:57

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.