[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#Relationship_with_the_angular_momentum

The net torque on a body determines the rate of change of the body's angular momentum,
τ = dL/dt
where L is the angular momentum vector and t is time.

Any isolated system not under external influence has conserved net linear momentum as well as net angular momentum. It implies that net force and net torque is zero.
If you find that a net force of a system is not zero, there must be an external influence not taken into the calculation yet. The same applies for torque in rotational systems.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

More diversion, there is no need to bring tensor analysis into the discussion of torque.

In most applications, we don't need to use tensor analysis to express conductivity either. But it would mean that your analysis is incomplete, and there's possibility that you will get incorrect numbers.

[paul cotter]

If the bolt freely turns for 1 microradian then the spanner will not hit the obstruction and the torque will be 1Nm. The bolt turns 1 microradian, sin1microradian = 1x10 exp -6,   0.5x 1x10 exp -6 =0.5x10 exp -6,  this is half the distance to the obstructing block.  Edit: bullshit, you do not need tensor analysis for simple mechanics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

At least some of them must be correct because they are the same as current standard, which you claimed to be perfect.

A good apple is a good apple. A good orange is a good orange. Pretending that there is or ought to be a visible correspondence between apples and oranges is a bad idea, particularly if it leads you to develop meaningless oranges. Some of us realise from an early age that linear and rotational motion are very different.

You forget that rotational work equals torque times angular displacement.

How could I possibly forget the bloody obvious? And what gives you the ability to know what I forget?

They have differences, but also similarities.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html
The link shows the comparison between linear and rotational quantities. They are both physical quantities, and you should be able to compare them.

Because you could not find angle in the derivation of torque.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If the bolt freely turns for 1 microradian then the spanner will not hit the obstruction and the torque will be 1Nm. The bolt turns 1 microradian, sin1microradian = 1x10 exp -6,   0.5x 1x10 exp -6 =0.5x10 exp -6,  this is half the distance to the obstructing block.  Edit: bullshit, you do not need tensor analysis for simple mechanics.

So, is it a cancellation or counterbalance?

As shown in the video, if you can solve the problem without using tensor analysis, you can consider yourself lucky, because most of the parameters are zero.

[paul cotter]

I told you previously that I do not look at videos, I have better ways of wasting my time. I do not know what you are talking about, re cancelation or counterbalancing- it is a simple example of torque and the "obstruction" plays no role with the figures you supplied.

[Bored chemist]

As explained by Meta AI,

Why do you keep using AI?
Is it because you realise that you do not actually know what you are talking about?

I'd like to remind especially younger members who haven't used AI, that we are at risk of being replaced by someone else who use AI effectively. If you think that you can compete with them without using AI, you are taking an unnecessary risk.

AI is a tool.
So is a drill.
The difference is that they put a warning on the drill, telling you that it's dangerous if you don't know how to use it.

[Bored chemist]

And re this "
Let's compare facts and figures. How many control loops have you designed, implemented, commissioned, improved, tuned in the last twenty years? "
For the sake of discussion (And to save the trouble  of estimating a count) , let's pretend it is just one. Let's say it's a system just like the one in the video about a sensitive balance

The point is that I understood that system and it seems you do not.

You misunderstood that system. That's why you think someone else who disagree with you doesn't.

Nice claim.
Post evidence.

[Bored chemist]

More diversion, there is no need to bring tensor analysis into the discussion of torque.

In most applications, we don't need to use tensor analysis to express conductivity either. But it would mean that your analysis is incomplete, and there's possibility that you will get incorrect numbers.

This is another example of HY pretending he's the only clever one.

[paul cotter]

He pretends to be the clever one, true, but he is fooling no one.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As explained by Meta AI,

Why do you keep using AI?
Is it because you realise that you do not actually know what you are talking about?

I'd like to remind especially younger members who haven't used AI, that we are at risk of being replaced by someone else who use AI effectively. If you think that you can compete with them without using AI, you are taking an unnecessary risk.

AI is a tool.
So is a drill.
The difference is that they put a warning on the drill, telling you that it's dangerous if you don't know how to use it.

A Stanford professor warned that if you use AI as a tool you are using it the wrong way. AI is more effective when treated like an assistant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And re this "
Let's compare facts and figures. How many control loops have you designed, implemented, commissioned, improved, tuned in the last twenty years? "
For the sake of discussion (And to save the trouble  of estimating a count) , let's pretend it is just one. Let's say it's a system just like the one in the video about a sensitive balance

The point is that I understood that system and it seems you do not.

You misunderstood that system. That's why you think someone else who disagree with you doesn't.

Nice claim.
Post evidence.

Re "Here's another example to show that expected rotational radius "
That depends whether or not you are sensible in your expectations.
If you are not, that isn't our responsibility.
This "The question is, what's the torque produced by the force?" is a meaningless question.
It's like asking "How far is it to Rome?". There is no "right" answer.

If you don't specify "about such and such a point" then you can't sensibly ask what the torque is.

Pissing about with the units does not alter that.



And, if I have measured the length of the green line in this picture correctly, the answer is about 0.55 N m

Diag 2.png (15.27 kB . 722x588 - viewed 485 times)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

More diversion, there is no need to bring tensor analysis into the discussion of torque.

In most applications, we don't need to use tensor analysis to express conductivity either. But it would mean that your analysis is incomplete, and there's possibility that you will get incorrect numbers.

This is another example of HY pretending he's the only clever one.

I'm obviously not the only one. Mahesh Shenoy, the author of the video also seems to understand the subject. So does Feynman, whose book inspired him.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

He pretends to be the clever one, true, but he is fooling no one.

I have no intention to fool anyone. I want everyone to be able to think for themselves and find the best answers to their problems, instead of fooling themselves into thinking that they already know the complete pictures and then stop learning.

[paul cotter]

You do not seem to be generating any great interest in this attack on well established mechanics. Only seems to be four people interested in voting and you have lost 3:1. If there was any validity to your argument, surely one would expect greater contributions?

[alancalverd]

No mention of angle, anywhere.

The angle is implied by the usage of rotational radius.

But neither dictionary definition mentions "rotational radius".

If I hang a 1N weight on a 1 m arm and it moves 1 microradian, what is the torque?

If torque is a cause, expressed in newton meters, τ = 1Nm, as measured by any torque meter

If torque is an effect, expressed in newton meters per radian, τ = 1,000,000 Nm/rad according to Hamdani.

Which is the more useful number?

Suppose it moves 2 μrad

Then conventionally τ = 1 Nm

But using your definition, τ = 500,000 Nm/rad

So why does the torque wrench read the same value?

[Bored chemist]

And re this "
Let's compare facts and figures. How many control loops have you designed, implemented, commissioned, improved, tuned in the last twenty years? "
For the sake of discussion (And to save the trouble  of estimating a count) , let's pretend it is just one. Let's say it's a system just like the one in the video about a sensitive balance

The point is that I understood that system and it seems you do not.

You misunderstood that system. That's why you think someone else who disagree with you doesn't.

Nice claim.
Post evidence.

Re "Here's another example to show that expected rotational radius "
That depends whether or not you are sensible in your expectations.
If you are not, that isn't our responsibility.
This "The question is, what's the torque produced by the force?" is a meaningless question.
It's like asking "How far is it to Rome?". There is no "right" answer.

If you don't specify "about such and such a point" then you can't sensibly ask what the torque is.

Pissing about with the units does not alter that.



And, if I have measured the length of the green line in this picture correctly, the answer is about 0.55 N m

Diag 2.png (15.27 kB . 722x588 - viewed 485 times)

If you think that diagram is a video about a sensitive balance then you really have lost the plot.

[Bored chemist]

He pretends to be the clever one, true, but he is fooling no one.

I have no intention to fool anyone.

But you have succeeded in fooling yourself.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You do not seem to be generating any great interest in this attack on well established mechanics. Only seems to be four people interested in voting and you have lost 3:1. If there was any validity to your argument, surely one would expect greater contributions?

You need to be aware of selection bias. Not many members are active in this forum.

I also run a poll in quora. A user chose third option.
All frontier AI models I asked unanimously choose third option. They are allegedly as smart as human PhDs in their respected field of expertise.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And re this "
Let's compare facts and figures. How many control loops have you designed, implemented, commissioned, improved, tuned in the last twenty years? "
For the sake of discussion (And to save the trouble  of estimating a count) , let's pretend it is just one. Let's say it's a system just like the one in the video about a sensitive balance

The point is that I understood that system and it seems you do not.

You misunderstood that system. That's why you think someone else who disagree with you doesn't.

Nice claim.
Post evidence.

Re "Here's another example to show that expected rotational radius "
That depends whether or not you are sensible in your expectations.
If you are not, that isn't our responsibility.
This "The question is, what's the torque produced by the force?" is a meaningless question.
It's like asking "How far is it to Rome?". There is no "right" answer.

If you don't specify "about such and such a point" then you can't sensibly ask what the torque is.

Pissing about with the units does not alter that.



And, if I have measured the length of the green line in this picture correctly, the answer is about 0.55 N m

Diag 2.png (15.27 kB . 722x588 - viewed 485 times)

If you think that diagram is a video about a sensitive balance then you really have lost the plot.

Your diagram clearly shows your misunderstanding of the concept.