Finding Normal Reaction and Friction Force on a Ladder Leaning Against a Wall

  • Thread starter Thread starter kell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wall
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the normal reaction and friction force for a ladder leaning against a wall, where a man stands at a distance x from the bottom. The initial approach incorrectly used x/L instead of x for the man's position, leading to a dimensional inconsistency in the torque calculations. The correct moment for the man's weight should be mgx*sinθ, not (mgx/L)sinθ, as x represents an absolute distance along the ladder. Participants clarified that the formula for the normal force needed to exclude the division by L, ensuring proper dimensional consistency. Ultimately, the correct interpretation of the problem led to a resolution of the confusion regarding the calculations.
kell
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hi all, this is a problem with which I led myself in circles with for hours, because I kept forgetting to factor in a different thing each time. Long story short, I thought I'd cracked it, but my answer and the given answer are out by a square. Please see my efforts below!

Homework Statement


A uniform ladder of mass M and length L stands on rough horizontal ground and leans against a vertical wall with which it makes an angle θ. A man of mass m stands on the ladder a distance x from the bottom.

a) obtain expressions for the normal reaction and the friction force acting at the point of contact between the ladder and the ground.


Homework Equations



The normal is obviously (m+M)g.

Other than that, it's static equilibrium, and the equation I used for balancing was the moments, where τNW is the moment due to the normal FNW to the wall at the top of the ladder, and τMg and τmg are the two moments of the ladder and man:

1. τNW = τMg + τmg

The Attempt at a Solution



Pretty simple. I have the ladder to be length L, so I set the origin of turning at the base of the ladder. I want to find FNW because it's equal to the frictional force FF at the base of the ladder.

The radius component for the moment τNW is this Lcosθ. The moment is thus: FNWLcosθ.
The radius component for τMg is (L/2)sinθ, and for τmg is (x/L)sinθ.
So the two moments are: [(MgL)/2]sinθ and [(mgx)/L]sinθ

Equation 1. then becomes:

FNWLcosθ = [(MgL)/2]sinθ + [(mgx)/L]sinθ

Which evidently becomes, solving for FNW:

FNW = (M/2 + mx/L2)gtanθ

In the given answer, the mx/L2 term is simply mx/L. But the position of the man along the ladder was given as x from the bottom, so this should be written x/L, right? Which means dividing out the L on the FNW side will always create a squared term.

Any insight appreciated.

Jack
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kell said:
The radius component for the moment τNW is this Lcosθ. The moment is thus: FNWLcosθ.
The radius component for τMg is (L/2)sinθ, and for τmg is (x/L)sinθ.
So the two moments are: [(MgL)/2]sinθ and [(mgx)/L]sinθ

The moment arm of mg should be x sinθ ,not (x/L)sinθ .The distance of the man is given from the bottom of the ladder .This distance is x not x/L .Just as the moment arm of Mg is (L/2)sinθ,likewise that of mg will be x sinθ .The torque due to mg ,τmg=mgxsinθ.

This will give you the correct answer.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Why would there be an extra L? Your "man" term in the equation is not dimensionally consistent with the other two terms. Your term would be correct if he were at a fractional location x/L of the total ladder length. But that's not the case. He is at an absolute distance x up the ladder.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
This formula is obviously wrong:

FNW = (M/2 + mx/L2)gtanθ

The second term in the parenthesis has units of mass/length so you cannot add it to the M/2.

Now why did you get this?
You misinterpret the meaning of x.
They say "distance x from the bottom". So x is clearly a distance, in meters or whatever unit you use.

The moment of the force should be a force times a distance. For the weight of the man, the "radius component" is x*sinθ so the moment will be mgx*sinθ.
I don't really see why would you think to divide by L.

Edit. Sorry, I was writing (slowly :)) while Chestermiller posted already.
 
Yup, you're all clearly correct. Thanks so much for pointing it out. I really don't know why I was trying to divide by the L. I had established it way early on in my workings and didn't think to question it later. Losing the forest for the trees!

Cheers everyone :)
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top