I Apparent Weight problem (falling beam)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the apparent weight of two 2 kg weights on a beam suspended by a rubber band. After dropping the beam for one second, the rubber band exerts a force of 106 Newtons, leading to a calculated vertical acceleration of 16.69 m/s². The apparent weight of each mass is determined to be 53 N, which is half of the rubber band's force, confirming that the total apparent weight of the system is 106 N. The use of symbols for physical quantities simplifies the algebra and clarifies the relationship between the forces involved. The conclusion emphasizes that the apparent weight is directly related to the tension in the rubber band, making the calculations clearer.
Jackolantern
Messages
28
Reaction score
4
1653840811842.png


Each weight: 2 Kg
Hello All, I'm trying to understand an "apparent weight" problem and check my answer. Please use the picture attached.

A weightless beam is at first resting over my palm, it has one 2 kg weight on each end of it. It is suspended to the ceiling by a rubber band. I drop it and it falls for 1 second. At this instant it is has a velocity of 9.8 m/s and the rubber band is exerting an elastic force on it of 106 Newtons. Now, the task is to estimate the "apparent" weight of the 2 kg weights on the beam in this instant as felt by the beam.

-First, I calculate the vertical acceleration induced by the force of the rubber band on the beam:

With a free body diagram of the beam, the only forces acting on it are the weights and the force from the rubber band

Each weight has a force of 19.62 N ( 2 kg * 9.81).
(F)sum = m * a

106 - 2*(19.62) = 4 kg * a
a = 16.69 m/s^2

The apparent weight of an object is its mass multiplied by the vector difference between the gravitational acceleration and the acceleration of the object.

F = m * a

F = 2 kg * (9.81 + 16.669) = 53 N

So, my question is, at the 2nd instant illustrated by my photo above, the apparent weight of each of the weights on the end of the beam is 53 N?
This is just half of the rubber band force...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Each mass has apparent weight 53 N so the total apparent weight of the beam with the masses is 106 N as expected.

Note that some things will often be clearer if you introduce symbols to represent physical quantities and only insert measured values at the very end. In your case, you could introduce the following:

F = 106 N
m = 2 kg
g = 9.1 m/s^2
a = acceleration of the masses
W = apparent weight of one mass

Your algebra would have become:

Force relation to acceleration:
$$
F - 2mg = 2ma \quad \Longrightarrow \quad a = \frac{F}{2m} - g
$$

Apparent weight of one mass:
$$
W = m(a+g) = \frac{F}{2}.
$$

It is then clear that the apparent weight of each mass is exactly half of the tension in the rubber band and that the masses and the acceleration and gravitational acceleration do not really matter for the result.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and Jackolantern
Orodruin said:
Each mass has apparent weight 53 N so the total apparent weight of the beam with the masses is 106 N as expected.

Note that some things will often be clearer if you introduce symbols to represent physical quantities and only insert measured values at the very end. In your case, you could introduce the following:

F = 106 N
m = 2 kg
g = 9.1 m/s^2
a = acceleration of the masses
W = apparent weight of one mass

Your algebra would have become:

Force relation to acceleration:
$$
F - 2mg = 2ma \quad \Longrightarrow \quad a = \frac{F}{2m} - g
$$

Apparent weight of one mass:
$$
W = m(a+g) = \frac{F}{2}.
$$

It is then clear that the apparent weight of each mass is exactly half of the tension in the rubber band and that the masses and the acceleration and gravitational acceleration do not really matter for the result.
That's much more clear to me now, thank you Orodruin.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban and berkeman
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
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