Doubt on this worked example from book by David Morin

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on a worked example from David Morin's Classical Mechanics book, specifically questioning the calculation of the net moment about a pivot in equation (2.57). The confusion arises regarding whether the moment considers only the weight of the stick's portion to the right of the pivot or also the left side. Clarification is provided that the equation is correct by interpreting the integral as a Riemann sum, where torque contributions from each segment of the stick are accounted for. Additionally, the second differentiation in the equation is explained as a method to simplify a complex integral into a more manageable differential equation. The differentiation rule used involves integration by parts, specifically applying it to the components of the integral in equation (2.57).
bksree
Messages
75
Reaction score
2
Attached is a worked problem in the Classical Mech book by Morin.

I don't understand how eqn (2.57) is the net moment about the pivot. Isn't it only the moment of the weight of the portion of the stick to the right of the pivot ? What about the moment due to the weight of length 'l' on left of pivot ?

Why is the equation 2.57 differntiated the second time ?

Please explain.

TIA
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
the formula appears correct to me. maybe this will help. think of the integral as a Riemann sum, a bunch of rectangles under the function rho(x)*(x-(xo+l))*g . now, think of the first rectangle (and let there be lots of rectangles). this will have a hight rho(xo)*l*g and width dx, so the torque contribution from the first dx of the stick will be: rho(xo)*l*g*dx. this is correct! the weight of that little piece is rho(xo)*g*dx and it is a distance l from the pivot.

as for why he differentiated again, i don't see any other way to find rho(x). he simply turns a hard integral problem into an easy differential equation.
 
Thank you.

BTW, what is the rule being used to differentiate the definite inegral in eqn 2.57 ?

TIA
 
cheers,

he does integration by parts on 2.57 before taking the derivative:

u= x-(xo+l) and dv = g*rho(x) dx
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top