- #1

- 310

- 1

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter goldfish9776
- Start date

- #1

- 310

- 1

- #2

- 36,206

- 6,823

If you take moments about the z axis through other points, Bx and By could have moment, but as demonstrated both those forces are zero.

Can you clarify your question?

- #3

- 310

- 1

an why there is no restriction about moment about Z ? i think there is also restriction of moment about Z because i can form the equation -2Bx +3By = 0 , so it can prevent the object from rotating about the z axis ....

If you take moments about the z axis through other points, Bx and By could have moment, but as demonstrated both those forces are zero.

Can you clarify your question?

- #4

- 36,206

- 6,823

Sure, but it doesn't tell you anything extra. Bx and By are both known to be zero, so that reduces to 0=0.an why there is no restriction about moment about Z ? i think there is also restriction of moment about Z because i can form the equation -2Bx +3By = 0 , so it can prevent the object from rotating about the z axis ....

- #5

- 310

- 1

So, if there is the moment restriction about an axis, the force which causes the moment must be non zero value? I.e. There must be at least a counterclockwise and clockwise moment to prevent rotation, so that it can restrict the moment about an axis?Sure, but it doesn't tell you anything extra. Bx and By are both known to be zero, so that reduces to 0=0.

- #6

- 36,206

- 6,823

I'm not sure what you mean by a moment 'restriction'. Do you mean some physical connection which prevents rotation? Or do you mean a sum of forces law? In a static arrangement, the moments must balance. That can be achieved just as well by there being no nonzero moments as by there being nonzero moments which cancel.So, if there is the moment restriction about an axis, the force which causes the moment must be non zero value? I.e. There must be at least a counterclockwise and clockwise moment to prevent rotation, so that it can restrict the moment about an axis?

- #7

- 310

- 1

As we can see in the question , for moment about x and y =0 , the moment is restricted about x and y axis.... Why not the moment is restricted about the z axis? Since we can form the equationI'm not sure what you mean by a moment 'restriction'. Do you mean some physical connection which prevents rotation? Or do you mean a sum of forces law? In a static arrangement, the moments must balance. That can be achieved just as well by there being no nonzero moments as by there being nonzero moments which cancel.

-2BX +3BY=0

- #8

- 36,206

- 6,823

As the text says, if you were to add a force, no matter how small, that had a moment about the z axis through B then the plate would turn. There is no other force that has moment about that axis, so there would be nothing to oppose the additional force.As we can see in the question , for moment about x and y =0 , the moment is restricted about x and y axis.... Why not the moment is restricted about the z axis? Since we can form the equation

-2BX +3BY=0

The Bx and By forces would not have a moment about that axis even if those forces were nonzero.

- #9

- 310

- 1

why ? they have some distance (r) from the z axis , right ?As the text says, if you were to add a force, no matter how small, that had a moment about the z axis through B then the plate would turn. There is no other force that has moment about that axis, so there would be nothing to oppose the additional force.

The Bx and By forces would not have a moment about that axis even if those forces were nonzero.

- #10

- 36,206

- 6,823

When you say "z axis", you mean the axis in the z direction that passes through point B, right? How can a force that also passes through that axis be at a nonzero distance from it?why ? they have some distance (r) from the z axis , right ?

- #11

- 310

- 1

no , i mean z a-xis , not Bz axisWhen you say "z axis", you mean the axis in the z direction that passes through point B, right? How can a force that also passes through that axis be at a nonzero distance from it?

- #12

- 36,206

- 6,823

Ah, ok.no , i mean z a-xis , not Bz axis

I think the author meant the z' axis, i.e. the vertical axis through B. But she might have been using "rotation about the z axis" in a generic sense, i.e. any rotation in the xy plane.

- #13

- 310

- 1

if the plane cant rotate in Bz axis , it cant rotate as well as in z -axis?Ah, ok.

I think the author meant the z' axis, i.e. the vertical axis through B. But she might have been using "rotation about the z axis" in a generic sense, i.e. any rotation in the xy plane.

- #14

- 36,206

- 6,823

I think the author means that if there were a torque added perpendicular to the XY plane then there would be a rotation in that plane. This is true, and specifically, it would be a rotation about the z' (i.e. Bz) axis. It cannot rotate about any other z-direction axis because of the ball-and-socket joint at B.if the plane cant rotate in Bz axis , it cant rotate as well as in z -axis?

Share: