Why is the sin(60) term doubled in the truss equilibrium equation?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around confusion regarding the doubling of the sin(60) term in the truss equilibrium equation for the y direction. Participants note that the vertical equilibrium equation should not include the factor of 2, suggesting a potential error in the formulation. The conversation highlights the need for complete geometric information to accurately solve the problem, as the provided diagram is deemed incomplete. Additionally, it is mentioned that using the Method of Sections typically involves cutting three members to maintain solvability with the given equations. The overall consensus is that clarification is needed regarding the application of the sine term and the completeness of the provided information.
canicon25
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
truss.jpg


cannot understand something about this. here are the equations:

-T1-T3-T2cos(60)=0 x direction
2T2sin(60)-981N=0 y directionI don't understand why the sin(60) term is doubled in the y direction equation. Can anyone explain?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I guess you are using the "Method of Sections"?

However your diagram as you have drawn it is incomplete and it is impossible to complete the calculation as you need some geometrical information for the third (moment ) equation.

I agree that the vertical equilibrium, as shown, should not contain the factor of 2.
Is this a cantilever?
 
Thanks for reply. I got the question from here:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Statics/Method_of_Sections

As I was reading through the double sine term seemed odd and wanted some clarification. As you can see on the website no moment calculations were done. Is that correct or is something in act missing? The diagram shown at the link looks fixed at the LHS.
 
Well obviously you can't trust WikiXXX all the time!

If you think about it you have 2 equations and 3 unknowns, T1,T2 and T3.

If you take moments about the joint where T2 and T3 meet then you can solve for T1.

That is why it is normally recommended to only cut 3 members in the section.
 

Thread 'Mousetrap Car Energy efficiency'

For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...
View full post »

Similar threads

Undergrad Question on analytic mechanics
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Simple Harmonic Motion: why sin(wt) instead of sin(t)?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
How should I find the equilibrium points and the general equation?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Static equilibrium -- interpretation of forces
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Conceptual question involving tension and angles
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
To what extent does this system behave as a pendulum?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
988
Undergrad Questions about these Trigonometry Graphs involving sin() and cos()
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Deriving Kinetic Energy in a Double Pendulum System
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
How to find the forces in a particular framework of light rods
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Electrodynamics problem - force equilibrium
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K