The discussion revolves around the calculation of moments using the method of joints in a static equilibrium problem. Participants explore the application of free body diagrams (FBDs) and the relevance of specific forces in determining moments about points B and C. The conversation includes aspects of homework-related problem-solving and technical reasoning.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to take moments about points B and C. Multiple competing views remain regarding the relevance of certain forces and the methods used to derive the equations.
There are unresolved questions about the assumptions made in the calculations, particularly concerning the definitions of the boom and the forces acting on it. The discussion highlights the complexity of static equilibrium problems and the various methods that can be employed to analyze them.
If I consider the rod CB only, then my moment about B = Cy(8) =0... Then Cy =0... But in the author's working, the author found that Ay = 0billy_joule said:It's right.
Your subsequent working must have had an error as your conclusion was incorrect.
Why not try again, be more careful with your algebra and see how far you get.I'm not sure what you mean by that.
You forgot to include Cx.chetzread said:If I consider the rod CB only, then my moment about B = Cy(8) =0... Then Cy =0... But in the author's working, the author found that Ay = 0
My answer is different with the authors ans
OK, I gt the answer... So for this type of problem which involve multiple force member, we should consider forces equilibrium in 1 force member only if we can't solve the forces using equilibrium at all 3 members ?billy_joule said:You forgot to include Cx.
In this case we only consider moment about B in a rod only? If we consider moment about B in 2 rods, we can't solve the question?chetzread said:OK, I gt the answer... So for this type of problem which involve multiple force member, we should consider forces equilibrium in 1 force member only if we can't solve the forces using equilibrium at all 3 members ?
I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule.chetzread said:OK, I gt the answer... So for this type of problem which involve multiple force member, we should consider forces equilibrium in 1 force member only if we can't solve the forces using equilibrium at all 3 members ?
I am not concerned about the speed of solving the question...billy_joule said:I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule.
Seeing the quickest and easiest approach will come with practice.
This particular problem could be solved much faster with the method of joints.
Can you show how do you solve the question by method of joints?billy_joule said:I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule.
Seeing the quickest and easiest approach will come with practice.
This particular problem could be solved much faster with the method of joints.
Best to wait until after you've learned the method in class.chetzread said:Can you show how do you solve the question by method of joints?