How to find the equilibrium position of three masses (two of them fixed)?

In summary, when solving for the equilibrium position of a third body acted upon by two bodies of masses m1 and m2 at a fixed distance d apart, the quadratic equation d^2*(y-1) + 2dD - d^2 = 0 will yield two possible solutions: D = d/(1 + sqrt(y)) and D = d/(1 - sqrt(y)). However, the negative solution is invalid due to physical constraints and should be discarded. Only the positive solution represents the equilibrium position. It is important to consider the physical context of the problem when interpreting the solutions.
  • #1
gnitsuk
2
0
Homework Statement
How to find the equilibrium position of three masses (two of them fixed)
Relevant Equations
F=Gmm'/r^2
Question: Suppose that two bodies of masses m1 and m2 are a fixed distance d apart, and that both of them act on a third body of mass m. Find the position of the third body such that the two forces are in equilibrium.

I have solved this question and obtained the answer listed in the back of the book from which this question comes. The given answer is:

Equilibrium point is on the line joining the two bodies, at a distance d/(1 + sqrt(y)) from the body of mass m1. Where y = m2/m1.

The solving of this requires the solution of a quadratic equation.

In my case I let D be the distance of m from m1 and the quadratic I needed to solve was d^2*(y-1) + 2dD - d^2 = 0.

I used the quadratic formula to solve this for D, and to get the book answer I took the positive sign in that formula.

My question is, if I take the negative sign I and up with the answer: d/(1 - sqrt(y))

In what way is this answer not valid (I can see that if y > 1 then m2 > m1 and so this would give a negative distance, and that m cannot be to the left of m1 for equilibrium, but if m2 < m1 then sqrt(y) < 1 and so d/(1 - sqrt(y)) would be positive).

{Aside: I appreciate that I can do it this way: (d-D)^2=D^2*y therefore (d-D)^2=D^2=(sqrt(y))^2 and then taking the root of each side I get to the answer in the book, but I was trying to understand the negative root in the approach where I solve the quadratic with the quadratic formula).

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The equation you write down to start with, ##m_1/x^2=m_2/(d-x)^2##, is only correct if ##0<x<d##.
Outside that range, the equation becomes ##m_1/x^2=-m_2/(d-x)^2##.
 
  • #3
In the situation you described where two bodies of mass m1 and m2 act on a third body of mass m, you obtained the quadratic equation d^2*(y-1) + 2dD - d^2 = 0 well, where D is the distance of the third body from the body of mass m1. Solving this quadratic equation will yield two possible solutions: D = d/(1 + sqrt(y)) and D = d/(1 - sqrt(y)).

You note correctly that if y > 1 (implying m2 > m1), then solving D = d/(1 - sqrt(y)) will yield a negative path, which does not make physical sense in this case in addition that the equilibrium position cannot move to the left m1, e.g. You have searched right. Thus, in this particular case, only the positive solution D = d/(1 + sqrt(y)) is valid and represents the equilibrium position of the third body

It is important to consider the physical constraints and to interpret the solution in the context of the problem to prove it. In this respect, negative radicalization is incompatible with a balanced position of material reason.
 
  • #4
Sai prince said:
In the situation you described where two bodies of mass m1 and m2 act on a third body of mass m, you obtained the quadratic equation d^2*(y-1) + 2dD - d^2 = 0 well, where D is the distance of the third body from the body of mass m1. Solving this quadratic equation will yield two possible solutions: D = d/(1 + sqrt(y)) and D = d/(1 - sqrt(y)).

You note correctly that if y > 1 (implying m2 > m1), then solving D = d/(1 - sqrt(y)) will yield a negative path, which does not make physical sense in this case in addition that the equilibrium position cannot move to the left m1, e.g. You have searched right. Thus, in this particular case, only the positive solution D = d/(1 + sqrt(y)) is valid and represents the equilibrium position of the third body

It is important to consider the physical constraints and to interpret the solution in the context of the problem to prove it. In this respect, negative radicalization is incompatible with a balanced position of material reason.
As I read it, @gnitsuk understood all that, but was puzzled as to how the extraneous solution had arisen. I explained that in post #2.

Note that the analogous question can be asked in electrostatics, but in that case the 'mass' can be negative. A correct procedure is to look for solutions between them and solutions outside them separately, writing the appropriate starting equation for each case, and filtering the answers according to the band in which that equation is valid.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Thanks for all the replies, they have let me understand the issue and resolve my confusion.
 

1. How do I calculate the equilibrium position of three masses with two fixed?

To find the equilibrium position of three masses with two fixed, you will need to use the principle of moments. This involves balancing the moments on each side of the fixed masses to find the point where they are equal. This point will be the equilibrium position.

2. What information do I need to know to find the equilibrium position?

You will need to know the masses of all three objects, the distances between them, and the positions of the fixed masses. You may also need to know the gravitational constant and the acceleration due to gravity, depending on the specific scenario.

3. Can I use the equations for static equilibrium to find the equilibrium position?

Yes, you can use the equations for static equilibrium to find the equilibrium position. These equations involve balancing the forces and moments acting on each object in order to determine the overall equilibrium position.

4. Is there a specific formula or method to find the equilibrium position of three masses?

There is no specific formula or method to find the equilibrium position of three masses. It will depend on the specific scenario and the information that is given. However, the principle of moments and equations for static equilibrium can be used to solve for the equilibrium position.

5. How does the position of the fixed masses affect the equilibrium position?

The position of the fixed masses will affect the equilibrium position because it determines the distribution of mass and the moments acting on the system. If the fixed masses are closer to one of the moving masses, it will have a greater influence on the equilibrium position.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
621
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
538
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
718
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
236
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
740
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top