Point of application of resultant force from bound vector forces

AI Thread Summary
Determining the resultant force from bound vector forces requires understanding the point of application, as opposed to free vectors where the head-tail rule can be applied easily. In the case of bound vectors, the resultant force's location is calculated relative to a fixed point by summing the products of each force and its respective position. The discussion highlights the complexity of calculating the resultant force when multiple forces are applied at different points on an object. Clarification on the definitions of free and bound vectors is sought, indicating a need for deeper understanding of these concepts. The conversation emphasizes the importance of considering the point of application in force calculations.
fog37
Messages
1,566
Reaction score
108
Hello Forum,

in the case of two or multiple free vectors, it is easy to determine graphically (head-tail rule) the resultant vector (magnitude and direction). The resultant vector is also a free vector.
A free vector is actually an infinite number of vectors with the same magnitude and direction but different points of application (equivalence class)

In the case of bound vectors, the point of application matters. For example, if an object has two different forces applied at different points on the extended object. How do we calculate the point of application or the line of action of the resultant force which is the sum of the two applied forces?

Is it possible?
thanks,
fog37
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You calculate the location of the resultant R relative to some fixed point x such that:

Rx = ∑Fixi

I don't really understand your definitions of free and bound vectors as I have never heard those terms before.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top