Equilibrium with moments of forces

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the equilibrium of forces and moments acting on a rod in a physics problem. A participant expresses confusion about a point P being located on the rod while a resultant force is calculated to be outside of it. Clarifications highlight that all forces contribute to clockwise torque, and the signs of the forces must be consistent in calculations. The concept of an "equivalent force" is introduced, indicating that it is a theoretical construct used to maintain equilibrium, even if it appears to act outside the rod. Ultimately, the dialogue emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting forces and their effects in equilibrium scenarios.
LuigiAM
Messages
55
Reaction score
7
Hi everyone,

This is not really a homework question per se since it's not an assignment. Basically, our physics professor gave us a 100+ page syllabus filled with example questions and solutions and I am practicing with them by doing them one after the other. This one question I'm having trouble with. Here it is:

jeRPxm3.jpg


The first thing that pops into my mind is that the rod is 1 meter long, and according to the professor's solution point P must be 1.25 meters from the end of the rod. However, in the drawing, the point P is actually on the rod. It seems a bit unintuitive to me that the force would be acting outside of the rod?

For the position of the resultant, my calculations are like this if x is the distance between points P and O:

(10 kg)(x) - (15 kg)(0.5 - x) - (5 kg)(1 - x) = 0
(10 kg)(x) - 7.5 kg + (15 kg)(x) - (5 kg) + (5 kg)(x) = 0
x (10 kg + 15 kg + 5 kg) = 7.5 kg + 5 kg
x (30 kg) = 12.5 kg
x = 12.5 kg / 30 kg = 0.42

I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong? I think the solution has all the forces as a negative when he's adding them up, but shouldn't the 10 kg force be a different sign than the 15 kg and the 5 kg one?

Thanks for any help

(Note: I ticked the box saying that I used the template, but I don't think it applies for this question since it's not really an assignment, it's just a question with the solution and I need help understanding the solution. I hope it's ok)
 

Attachments

  • jeRPxm3.jpg
    jeRPxm3.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 590
Physics news on Phys.org
LuigiAM said:
in the drawing, the point P is actually on the rod
It had to be drawn somewhere, and it might as well be within the rod. If it turns out to be beyond the rod that should be evident in the answer (negative x).
LuigiAM said:
unintuitive to me that the force would be acting outside of the rod
It was immediately apparent to me. As linear forces, the three applied forces have some cancellation, but as torques around the centre of the rod they all act clockwise. Thus the answer must be a relatively small force with a relatively large torque, making it further from the centre of the rod than the applied forces.
LuigiAM said:
(10 kg)(x) - (15 kg)(0.5 - x) - (5 kg)(1 - x)
Watch the signs. All of these have clockwise torque about P.
 
  • Like
Likes LuigiAM
Oh yes I understand why they all have the same sign now it's because they're pushing the rotation in the same direction. Hah I feel dumb I should've realized this.

But the problem still seems strange to me. How can a force that is applied outside the rod have an effect on the rod? The solution talks about an equilibrium, which means that the force R will cancel the others and prevent the rotation. It just seems impossible for this to happen unless there is actual contact with the rod, no?
 
LuigiAM said:
How can a force that is applied outside the rod have an effect on the rod?
The "equivalent force" is a theoretical construct. How it could be applied in practice is unimportant, but e.g. you could extend the rod using a rigid attachment, or you could balance it by applying another combination of forces with equal and opposite equivalent force.
 
I see... so, if I understand correctly then the rod in the example actually is rotating? And R is just theoretical?

I think I got confused because of the word "equilibrium" in the solution, I thought it meant that the forces actually acting on the rod were keeping it in equilibrium, so I just couldn't wrap my mind around how it could be outside the rod
 
The wording is confusing.
If you look carefully at the diagram you will see that the force up from P is labelled -R. That is, they anticipated that the resultant force will be downward so added an upward force of the same magnitude to achieve equilibrium.
This was unnecessary. They could simply have said that since the resultant had no moment about P the sum of the applied torques about P is zero.
 
  • Like
Likes LuigiAM
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...
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}...
Back
Top