Find the Moment about the ankle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the moment about the ankle due to the force at the knee (Fk) while considering the weight of the tibia. Participants debate whether the weight of the tibia, calculated as -5.886 N, should be included in the moment calculation or if only Fk should be considered. There is confusion regarding the angle of 60 degrees, with some suggesting it relates to the force components and others questioning its relevance. The consensus leans towards the idea that if Fk is aligned with the tibia, it may not create a moment at the ankle, and the tibia's mass might be a distraction from the main calculation. Clarity on the original problem statement is sought to resolve these ambiguities.
jweica
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
New user has been reminded to use the Homework Help Template when starting schoolwork threads at the PF
Given that the tibia is 0.6kg and is 35 cm long. The force at the knee (Fk) is: (-200i + 346.41j)N
Find the moment about the ankle due to Fk

I found that: r: rx = (0.35cos60) and ry = (0.35sin60)

Using the sum of moments where: rxFy - ryFx = 0

[(0.35cos60)(346.41)] - [(0.35sin60)(-200)] = 0 k Nm

But I am wondering since the tibia weighs 0.6kg, wouldn't that be included in the question as a Fy component [(0.6)(9.81) = -5.886]?
Do I neglect the weight and only use the Fk?

((I attached a poorly drawn free body diagram))
Screen Shot 2019-02-24 at 12.30.51 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-02-24 at 12.30.51 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-02-24 at 12.30.51 PM.png
    6.1 KB · Views: 455
Physics news on Phys.org
jweica said:
Given that the tibia is 0.6kg and is 35 cm long. The force at the knee (Fk) is: (-200i + 346.41j)N
Find the moment about the ankle due to Fk
I don't see anything there about 60 degrees. Where did that come from?
 
  • Like
Likes PhanthomJay
haruspex said:
I don't see anything there about 60 degrees. Where did that come from?

At a guess, it's from the dimensions of the force at the knee, where the angular force at the knee is broken into it's horizontal and vertical components of -200 and 346, which correspond to a 30/60/90 triangle having sides (2, 2##\sqrt (3)##, 4). It's unclear whether OP was given the angle and has already broken the forces into components, or was given the components and calculated the angle.
 
Friend of Kalina said:
At a guess, it's from the dimensions of the force at the knee, where the angular force at the knee is broken into it's horizontal and vertical components of -200 and 346, which correspond to a 30/60/90 triangle having sides (2, 2##\sqrt (3)##, 4). It's unclear whether OP was given the angle and has already broken the forces into components, or was given the components and calculated the angle.
Good point, but that means the 60 degrees is the angle of the applied force at the knee. The diagram shows it as the angle of the tibia. It seems unlikely to pose the question with the two at the same angle.
 
haruspex said:
Good point, but that means the 60 degrees is the angle of the applied force at the knee. The diagram shows it as the angle of the tibia. It seems unlikely to pose the question with the two at the same angle.

Given the diagram, I saw the problem as the force for someone turning with their leg at an angle to the ground and the foot/ankle pinned. The force is applied in line with the tibia (legs are don't bend laterally), with the leg at a 60 degree angle to the ground. Force in line with the leg along the tibia to the ankle is 400N, comprised of -200N horizontally and 346.41N vertically.

But you're right. Assuming that the components of Fk were given in the problem, if Fk is linearly along the tibia to the ankle, wouldn't that make it a radial force with zero torque? Nothing to solve, except the OP question of whether the tibia itself represents a moment. Much more likely that the tibia is vertical with the force Fk applied at the knee, in which case the tibia is vertical, provides no moment at the ankle, and can be disregarded. Although I'm not sure why you would then be concerned about the mass of the tibia, unless it was thrown into the problem as a red herring.

It would be nice to know if this was the original problem statement. It seems unlikely.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top