Gravitational net force of zero

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the position of a 50 kg mass between a 200 kg mass and a 500 kg mass, separated by 0.4 m, such that the 50 kg mass experiences a net gravitational force of zero. Participants explore gravitational interactions and the conditions necessary for equilibrium in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the requirement for gravitational forces from the two larger masses to balance each other at the position of the 50 kg mass. There are questions about the clarity of the problem setup, including whether the distances refer to core-to-core or surface-to-surface measurements. Some participants suggest alternative methods for finding the position, while others express uncertainty about the algebraic manipulations involved.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various approaches being proposed. Some participants have offered guidance on simplifying the problem, while others are verifying calculations and questioning the assumptions made regarding the distances involved. There is no explicit consensus on a single method or solution yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of information regarding the radii of the masses, which affects the assumptions about the distances used in calculations. There is also mention of potential algebraic errors in the reasoning presented.

UrbanXrisis
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
1
A 200 kg mass and a 500kg mass are separated by 0.4m. At what position can a 50kg mass be placed so as to experience a net force of zero (other than infinity)?

here's what I did:

I need both forces to equal each other.

[tex]F_{200}=G\frac{200m}{x^2}=G\frac{500m}{y^2}=F_{500}[/tex]
[tex]\frac{200}{x^2}=\frac{500}{y^2}[/tex]
[tex]200y^2=500x^2[/tex]
[tex]x+y=0.4[/tex]
[tex]x=0.4-y[/tex]
[tex]500(0.4-y)^2=200y^2[/tex]
[tex]500(0.16-0.8y+y^2)=200y^2[/tex]
[tex]200y^2=80-400y+500y^2[/tex]
[tex]1=\frac{0.4}{y^2}-\frac{2}{y}+2.5[/tex]
[tex]y=0.245m,x=0.155m[/tex]

did I do this correctly? was there a faster way?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your question isn't clear,are you trying to balance the entire system? How many dimensions here, 1 or 2? Do you want just the 50kg to experience no force? It looks like your talking about gravitational forces among the 3, right?
 
well, I copied the book. What I got was that I had to place the 50kg mass in between the 200kg and 500kg masses so that the 50kg mass experiences a net force of zero.
 
then you want the pull from left to equal the pull from the right. Though I didnt check your math, the method is right and your answer seems logical.
 
Are the CORES of the masses separated by 0.4m or just surface to surface? Anyway if it is the cores, don't bother with two variables. Say one will be x, the other 0.4-x.

Look:

GM1/(0.4-x)^2=GM2/x^2

So

M1/(0.4-x)^2=M2/x^2

So

M1x^2=M2(0.4-x)^2

SO

(M1^0.5)x=M2^0.5(0.4-x)

-((M1^0.5)x/M2^0.5)+0.4=x
-((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)+0.4/x=1
-((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)-1=-0.4/x
x=0.4/((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)-1

It would have been faster if you knew this formula!
 
Last edited:
Since the radius of each mass isn't provided, you are forced to assume that it is core to core.
 
In this case my guess was good :)
 
(M1^0.5)x=M2^0.5(0.4-x)

-((M1^0.5)x/M2^0.5)+0.4=x
-((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)+0.4/x=1
-((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)-1=-0.4/x
x=0.4/((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)-1

It would have been faster if you knew this formula!

there's a mistake in the algebra somewhere there. The answer should have + 1, not -1.
 
-((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)+0.4/x=1

so

0.4/x =1 + ((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5)
x = 0.4 / ( 1+ ((M1^0.5)/M2^0.5))
 
  • #10
UrbanXrisis said:
[tex]200y^2=80-400y+500y^2[/tex]
So far, so good. (Assuming these masses can be treated as particles.) Simplifying and rewriting this in standard form for a quadratic:
[tex]15y^2 -20y + 4 = 0[/tex]
Which yields two solutions, only one of which is relevant to this problem.
[tex]1=\frac{0.4}{y^2}-\frac{2}{y}+2.5[/tex]
I don't know why you wrote it this way.
[tex]y=0.245m,x=0.155m[/tex]
did I do this correctly? was there a faster way?
Perfectly correct.

It would have been slightly faster to immediately take the (positive) square root (as Werg22 showed), which eliminates the need to solve a quadratic:
[tex]\frac{200}{x^2}=\frac{500}{y^2} \; \Longrightarrow \; \frac{2}{x^2}=\frac{5}{y^2}[/tex]
becomes:
[tex]\frac{\sqrt{2}}{x}=\frac{\sqrt{5}}{y}[/tex]
 
  • #11
Sorry guys! It is actually because I forgot the 1 was an individual term... I tought it was part of the parenthesis when it is not.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K