Balancing a Beam: Man and Cans Experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter davev
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beam Experiment
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a man, a beam, and the forces acting on it. The man weighs 95 kg and constructs a 100 kg beam to paint his house, supported by two sawhorses. Participants are trying to solve for the force exerted by the beam on one support and the distance from the end of the beam where the man must stand to maintain balance. There is confusion regarding the calculations for torque and the specific values needed for different parts of the problem, particularly the meaning of "some length" and how to apply torque equations correctly. Clarification on the forces and distances involved is sought to resolve the issues in the calculations.
davev
Messages
31
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


5RiXGB0.gif

A man of mass mm = 95 kg decides to paint his house. To do this, he builds a platform using a uniform beam with a mass of mb = 100 kg and a length of L = 7 meters. The beam is supported by two sawhorses, as shown in the diagram above.

a)
If the man stands over the support at point B, calculate the force exerted by the beam on the support at A.

F = 490 N

b)
ovoCyRo.gif
How far from the end of the beam (the end closest to support A) does the person have to stand to unbalance the beam?

x =

c)
bgJhE5I.gif
Later that day, after thinking about how cool rotational dynamics really is, the man decides to conduct an experiment. He removes one of the supports and places the other as shown in the diagram. Standing at the end of the board, he has his daughter place paint cans, each of mass mc = 2.9375 kg, on the opposite end. How many cans will the girl have to place on the board to provide the best balance? (You may neglect the actual length of the board that both the man and the cans occupy. Assume both are points at the ends of the board.) Also, take the axis of rotation about the sawhorse.

Number of cans =

Homework Equations


For part b, we'd solve for x: (some length) * m = xM

I don't understand where to go for part c.

The Attempt at a Solution


I said (some length) was 1.5 and tried to multiply by 95 and divide by 100, and I keep getting the wrong answer. I don't know where to go for parts b and c.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hint for b: at the point farthest from the left where the balance is still possible, the A support is completely unloaded.

Hint for b & c: write down the equation for torques.
 
Net Force = 0 ... Force of B – mg – Mg = 0
Net Torque = 0

(0)*sin(90) + mg*(some length)*sin(90) - Mg*(x)*sin(90) = 0
(some length)*m = xM

I just don't understand why 1.5 isn't the (some length) value for part b.

I don't understand part c still.
 
I do not understand what "some length" is supposed to mean to begin with. Nor do I understand what "m" and "M" are. It would help if you stated what forces are present in case b, and where they are applied, so that their torques could be expressed unambiguously.
 
m is 95 kg, and M is 100 kg. (some length) is a distance between A and B. (some length) + x = 3 m. I think that's correct, at least.

The two weights and a force pointing straight up are all that are present in part b.
 
With respect to what you are computing the torques? Note it must be the same point for all the torques. What are the distances from that point?
 
What do you mean? What is the distance from point B? Only two meters separate B and the end of the beam.
 
What is unclear in my question "with respect to what you are computing the torques"?
 
Maybe it's the wording, but I don't know what you're asking. I know that the setup I have for part b is right. That's how my professor set up his example in class. I just need to know what (some length), so I can find x.
 
  • #10
davev said:
Net Force = 0 ... Force of B – mg – Mg = 0
Net Torque = 0

(0)*sin(90) + mg*(some length)*sin(90) - Mg*(x)*sin(90) = 0
(some length)*m = xM

I just don't understand why 1.5 isn't the (some length) value for part b.

I don't understand part c still.

Who says it's not?
 
  • #11
davev said:
Maybe it's the wording, but I don't know what you're asking.

What is the definition of "torque"?
 
Back
Top