| | |||||||
| Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems. |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
| |||
| |||
| |
|
#12
| |||
| |||
| |
|
#13
| |||
| |||
| "mumi" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:dk37j8$34s$[Only registered users see links. ].tpi.pl... In an oversimplified way, he is right: [Only registered users see links. ] Torque is *defined* to be the cross product of force and the displacement from the axis at which the force acts. When an axis of rotation is involved (as in *all* levers) torque is what is balanced at equilibrium, and serves as the analog in a rotating system for simple force in a non-rotating system. The definition of torque allows a small force to balance a greater one by acting at a proportionately greater distance (the moment arm) from the fulcrum (center of rotation). HTH Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
|
#14
| |||
| |||
| for the love of god. Can you think for a while before writing this kind of thing? It is not only that you are not helping me but you are making an impression that you have in fact answered some question and thus preventing people who may actually have somethin interesting to say from participating. Do you belive that the one who created the notion of torque had the power of god and could change reality by words and definitions? I dont think you do. The definition of torque allows NOTHING but there is SOMETHING that "allows a small force to balance a greater one by acting at a proportionately greater distance (the moment arm) from the fulcrum (center of rotation) " and i would like to know what the hell that THING is surely it is not a definition of any kind. |
|
#15
| |||
| |||
| mumi wrote: As long as necessary... Excuse me. I though that some correct information and a little exposition would be helpful. John was trying to tell you that What you are asking about is *defined* as torque. No. He certainly could *model* something of the way the real world works with a few concepts and mathematical definitions. I get the distinct impression that you never clicked the link I provided, or that you were scared off by a few Greek letters. Let me reproduce the salient part of the page here (in ASCII): "Torque is defined as t = r x F" where the t stands for 'torque', the '=' stands for 'is defined to be', the 'r' stands for 'the length of the moment arm', the 'x' stands for 'times', and the 'F' stands for 'the force'. Put it all together and it comes out as "'torque' 'is defined to be' 'the length of the moment arm' 'times' 'the force'" It is mathematics. Evidently mathematics is a foreign language to you. I recommend you learn a little. It is widely understood and used by intellectuals around the world. There are probably more people who understand 'mathematics' than any other single language in the world. It isn't very hard. Even 8-year old American kids can understand it, and they learn how to translate written words into mathematical 'equations' in school. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
|
#16
| |||
| |||
| I think this is what you are asking. With a lever, you push on one end and the other end moves. It is geometry, not physics, that determines the distance that one end moves compared to the other. The physics comes in when you assign a value of work (energy) to the distance of movement of one end, and when you assign a value of force that is applied at the other end. Force is the derivative of the change in energy (or said another way, energy is the integral of force over the distance), so the two values must be related through the geometrical relation. That is, for a given energy change, you can push with a large force over a short distance, or you can push with a small force over a larger distance. The geometrical relationship is what relates the distance you push to the distance from the fulcrum. It is physics that relates the force and energy to that distance. $.02 -Ron Shepard |
|
#17
| |||
| |||
| Hereby I define you a stupid dumbass whose dumbassness is diminishing proportionally with R where R is the distance from your CRT / LCD (where available). This makes you quite intelligent here and there unfortunately we will never know as you will be a total dumbass again when if vicinity of your internet-ready computer. Now get the hell out of my thread. |
|
#18
| |||
| |||
| mumi wrote: ....name-calling and ad hominem attacks simply because I agreed with someone else, eh? Whatever *that* is supposed to mean... You need to post your "No Trespassing" signs more clearly, publish your registry of the deed, and notify all of those you have intended to invite to participate in 'your thread.' I see four other names *besides* yours of participants in 'your thread.' <plonk> Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
|
#19
| |||
| |||
| mumi wrote: Mumi, the fact is that this is another example of an unanswerable "why" question in physics. To go back a step, F=ma does not have a "why" answer. There is no answer to *why* a force is proportional to acceleration, as opposed to something else plausible but wrong, like (say) velocity or momentum. It is an *observed fact* that doubling a force doubles the acceleration and doubling the mass halves the acceleration. Where the content lies, is in this pattern of *how* nature acts, not *why* it acts. Similarly, it is an *observed fact* that the same force applied at a further distance from the pivot increases the angular acceleration, and Newton's 2nd law for rotation codifies that general rule. Note that I can make it *plausible* by making arguments that the moment of inertia is mass*distance^2 and angular acceleration is a/r, and thus we can get from F=ma to the torque being F*r, but that is a plausibility argument only. The thing that makes it true is the concurrence with observation. PD |
|
#20
| |||
| |||
| |
| Tags |
| easier , greater , rotation |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
| | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| What is Gravity? | sdr@sdrodrian.com | Physics Forum | 1 | 01-27-2008 01:53 PM |
| Pi/2 Rotation am Qubit | Alexander Streltsov | Forum Physik | 0 | 06-14-2007 08:40 PM |
| The Achilles Heel of String Theory. | S D Rodrian | Physics Forum | 7 | 07-08-2006 02:40 PM |
| zero frame of rotation? | Rocket Scientist | Physics Forum | 4 | 01-03-2005 09:49 PM |
| Electrical Power From Earth's Rotation | stone2 | Physics Forum | 2 | 03-07-2004 02:43 PM |