Find Answers to Your Questions About 3 Forces in Equilibrium

  • Thread starter Thread starter Razzor7
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving for the third force in a system of three forces acting on a particle in equilibrium, with two forces given. The first force, A, is in the y-z plane at an angle Beta, while the second force, B, is in the x-z plane, described by integer lengths. The user struggles with interpreting the description of force B and its relationship to angle Beta, leading to confusion in calculating the third force, C. Attempts to derive the components of force C using trigonometric functions yield incorrect results, prompting a search for clarification on the problem's ambiguity. Ultimately, the user finds a diagram that may clarify the situation, highlighting the importance of visual aids in solving such problems.
Razzor7
Messages
49
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



3 forces act on a particle, it is in equilibrium, I am told about two of the three, asked to find the third.

We have a certain force A and it is in the y-z plane, described by a certain angle Beta. Then I'm told that there is a second force B in the x-z plane, described by integer lengths of a similar right triangle. What does that mean?

I have 2 attempts left on this question so I want to be sure. I am assuming it means it is described by the angle Beta in the x-z plane, but this isn't correct according to the website. What other interpretations could there be?

Attempts

I'll give you the numbers and my answer using the above: Beta is 31* A = 15.5 and B = 20.5
Magnitude of C, the third equalizing force?

Well sin31(A)+cos31(B) is the magnitude of the z component of the equalizing force. sin31(B) is the magnitude of the x component and cos31(A) is the magnitude of the y component. Squaring, adding, square rooting these terms gives 30.67 to 3 sig figs = 30.7, which is "wrong."

edit: I think I solved it by finding a diagram hidden under "hints" but can anyone confirm if the problem statement (as above) is ambiguous?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Razzor7: One guess might be, force B is at an angle beta, which you already tried. A second all-out guess for the italicized phrase might be that it means force B is at an angle (90 deg - beta), except that it sounds like it might want you to increment the similar triangle only to leg lengths that are integers, which would give only certain lengths for vector B (?). We might be somewhat at a loss without the diagrams.
 
Thread 'Have I solved this structural engineering equation correctly?'
Hi all, I have a structural engineering book from 1979. I am trying to follow it as best as I can. I have come to a formula that calculates the rotations in radians at the rigid joint that requires an iterative procedure. This equation comes in the form of: $$ x_i = \frac {Q_ih_i + Q_{i+1}h_{i+1}}{4K} + \frac {C}{K}x_{i-1} + \frac {C}{K}x_{i+1} $$ Where: ## Q ## is the horizontal storey shear ## h ## is the storey height ## K = (6G_i + C_i + C_{i+1}) ## ## G = \frac {I_g}{h} ## ## C...
Back
Top