Finding the Distance for Static Equilibrium of a Suspended Rod

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the distance at which a mass should be placed on a uniform rod to achieve static equilibrium. The problem involves concepts from statics and torque, specifically related to a suspended rod with two different masses attached.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss calculating torque for different masses and the implications of the rod's mass on the overall equilibrium. There are attempts to derive equations based on torque balance and questions about the significance of the rod's mass and its distribution.

Discussion Status

Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, with some participants arriving at different values for the distance x. There is an ongoing clarification about the role of the rod's mass and whether it contributes to the torque on both sides of the balance.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the uniformity of the rod's mass and question how this affects the calculations. There is also mention of the difficulty in understanding the problem due to a lack of instructional support.

flash2
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
A uniform .122kg rod of .90 m length is used to suspend two masses as shown below. At what distance x should the .20kg mass be place to achieve static equilibrium?

physics_torque2.jpg



Okay so I got the Torque of the 0.2kg mass

T= (0.2)(9.8)(x) with x being the length I hafta find.

Then I got the Torque of the 0.50kg mass

T= (0.5)(9.8)(0.2)

Then I plugged it into this...

sum of Torques CW= Sum of Torques CCW and the answer was 0.5m and I got that but originally for the 0.50 mass, I put in (0.25) for the length because that's what it is but I didn't get the answer so I did trial and error with the numbers I had and I figured 0.2m was the right length to get the right answer. So I'm wondering why it's 0.2 m and if the mass of the rod matters.. cause I dind't use it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well the answer I'm arriving at is .503 meters, or just .5 if you want to keep it simple. When they give you mass of the rod, that usually means it matters, and they make it simple when they tell you it's uniform. Since the mass-density is uniform you can assume that the rod applies all it's weight as though it were concentrated at the length of the rod divided by two, or .45. Since .45 is to the left of the support point, you can say the rod applies a torque of (.122*9.81*.2)

So the equation becomes (.2*9.81*x) + (.122*9.81*.2) = (.5*9.81*.25)
Solving for x yields .986886/(.2*9.81) = .503

When we plug this value into our original summation of torques equation we arrive at 1.22625 = 1.22625 so the bar must now be in static equilibrium.
 
The mass of the bar matters because even without the weights the bar will tilt in the direction of the longer side.
 
Oh man I get it so much more now. So is there a torque from the rod exerted on the right side of the balance too? Or does taht even matter?

I know this is prbly really easy but it's extremely hard when your teacher doesn't teach the lesson.

Thanks!

-f
 
flash2 said:
Oh man I get it so much more now. So is there a torque from the rod exerted on the right side of the balance too? Or does taht even matter?

I know this is prbly really easy but it's extremely hard when your teacher doesn't teach the lesson.

Thanks!

-f
You only need on torque from the rod. You may take all the mass of the rod as if it were located at the center of the rod (assuming the rod has uniform density).
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
4K