B Unable to understand how these two forces are equal

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter tbn032
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces Torque
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding why the forces N1 and N2 are equal to f and W, respectively, in a static equilibrium scenario. Participants clarify that in static equilibrium, all forces and moments must cancel each other, allowing for the comparison of vertical and horizontal forces despite their application at different points. The concept of relocating forces to the center of mass is introduced, emphasizing that this is permissible when analyzing translational equilibrium. It is noted that the distances of external forces to the center of mass do not affect the first equilibrium condition for a rigid body. Overall, the discussion aims to clarify the principles of force balance and static equilibrium in physics.
tbn032
Messages
34
Reaction score
7
20220820_163208.jpg

In the solution given in the above image, I am unable to understand and prove why N1=f and N2=W. I have tried balancing the torque on different point but still unable to prove. Explain how N1=f and N2=W can be proved.
The justification for N1=f and N2=W which I have so far read is that it is just balancing the vertical force with vertical force and the horizontal force with horizontal force which are being applied on the object since the object is at equilibrium. My confusion with that is that the vertical and horizontal forces are being applied at different position of the object, how can they be directly compared so that the ladder is in equilibrium.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The object is solid and strong enough to transfer these forces from one end to the other.
The object is in static equilibrium; therefore, all the forces and moments created by them must be cancelling each other.
All the reactive forces and moments counteract the force of the weight and any moment that it induces.

Without those being present, the weight force will acelerate the object downwards, without inducing any rotation.
Imagining that it could be possible, without the weight force, those reactive forces will move and rotate the object in diferent directions.
 
Lnewqban said:
The object is solid and strong enough to transfer these forces from one end to the other.
The object is in static equilibrium; therefore, all the forces and moments created by them must be cancelling each other.
All the reactive forces and moments counteract the force of the weight and any moment that it induces.
Since the object is at equilibrium, I understand that the vector sum N1+N2+W+f=0 and the vector sum of torque generated by these forces =0.but I do not understand how can the vertical forces be compared directly with vertical forces and horizontal force directly compared with horizontal force resulting in N1=f and N2=W even after they are being applied at different position.
 
Since the balance of moments is not confusing to you, just relocate all those forces to the center of mass of the object.
The actual location of each of those forces is only important for the moment it induces.
 
Lnewqban said:
jus relocate all those forces to the center of mass of the object.
Is relocation of forces which being applied at different position of the object to the center of mass of thr object which is at equilibrium allowed?if it is allowed, can you explain the concept behind it.
 
tbn032 said:
Is relocation of forces which being applied at different position of the object to the center of mass of thr object which is at equilibrium allowed?if it is allowed, can you explain the concept behind it.
Yes, you may do that when you are analyzing translational equilibrium only.
For this first equilibrium condition for the static equilibrium (no translational acceleration) of a rigid body, the distances of the external forces to the center of mass are irrelevant.

Please, see:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...apter/12-1-conditions-for-static-equilibrium/

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/9-6-center-of-mass/
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top