Equilibrium of Tilting Beam w/ Weight: Why does it Work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fabian901
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moments
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equilibrium of a tilting beam supported by two bricks when a weight is applied at one end. It explains that the beam can be in equilibrium even while tilting because the sum of moments about one support remains zero at the point just before it begins to tilt. Newton's first law is highlighted, stating that a stationary object remains stationary unless acted upon by an external force, and a moving object continues in motion at a constant velocity. The conversation clarifies that the moments can still be balanced while the beam is in motion, as the slightest additional moment can initiate tilting. Understanding this principle helps clarify misconceptions about the need for an external push to cause movement.
Fabian901
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Say I have a uniform beam supported by 2 bricks and I attach an object with a certain weight at one end of the beam so it starts tilting. Why is the beam still in equlibrium (sum of moments about one of the bricks is equal to 0) if it is tilting?. I've seen this exercise on youtube and I'm still not understanding it. The link is below if you want to have a look.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the example, the condition being calculated is for the case that the beam is just about to tilt. The moments exactly balance, so Newtons first law applies.
 
  • Like
Likes Fabian901
Simon Bridge said:
In the example, the condition being calculated is for the case that the beam is just about to tilt. The moments exactly balance, so Newtons first law applies.
Okay, but does the weight on the edge have enough downward force to actually make it tilt or would I need to increase it? If it does have enough downward force to make it tilt then surely it is just a matter of seconds until the beam starts tilting and therefore the sum of moments would not equal 0.
Would this be correct or am I missing something?
 
What does Newton's first law say?
If the beam is stationary, it remains stationary - if it is in motion, it stays in motion - at a constant (angular) velocity.

Lets say it (in the example) is stationary - then, with the moments exactly balanced the slightest extra moment, for the tiniest fraction of a second, will set it in motion at a constant angular velocity. You can see if the moments remain in balance while tilting by redrawing the picture with the beam tilted at some obvious angle, draw in the forces, and calculate the moments. However, they don't have to be out of balance for the beam to keep tilting.
 
  • Like
Likes Fabian901
Simon Bridge said:
What does Newton's first law say?
If the beam is stationary, it remains stationary - if it is in motion, it stays in motion - at a constant (angular) velocity.

Lets say it (in the example) is stationary - then, with the moments exactly balanced the slightest extra moment, for the tiniest fraction of a second, will set it in motion at a constant angular velocity. You can see if the moments remain in balance while tilting by redrawing the picture with the beam tilted at some obvious angle, draw in the forces, and calculate the moments. However, they don't have to be out of balance for the beam to keep tilting.
I see now! Thanks a lot for your help!
 
No worries - the idea that you have to push something for it to move is a hard one to get rid of.
 
  • Like
Likes Fabian901
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
Back
Top