MHB Free Body Diagram Explained: Why is Right FBD Upward?

Drain Brain
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Can you explain why the free body diagram of each members are as shown? I kind of understand why the FBD of the member on the left is drawn as shown. But the FBD on the right is confusing, Why does it have a component in Y (upward) direction?
thanks!
 

Attachments

  • statics friction.jpg
    statics friction.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 109
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Drain Brain said:
Can you explain why the free body diagram of each members are as shown? I kind of understand why the FBD of the member on the left is drawn as shown. But the FBD on the right is confusing, Why does it have a component in Y (upward) direction?
thanks!

Hi Drain Brain!

It's Newton's 3rd law: whenever a body pushes against another body, that body pushes back with an equal and opposite force.
For the horizontal forces that should be intuitive.
For the vertical forces we pick one down, meaning the other must be up.
 
I like Serena said:
Hi Drain Brain!

It's Newton's 3rd law: whenever a body pushes against another body, that body pushes back with an equal and opposite force.
For the horizontal forces that should be intuitive.
For the vertical forces we pick one down, meaning the other must be up.

Hi I Like Serena! Now I understand!

There's another thing I want to ask, my book says that there are 3 unknown forces on each member, but I see 4 unknowns. Can you tell me why that is?
 
Drain Brain said:
Hi I Like Serena! Now I understand!

Good!

There's another thing I want to ask, my book says that there are 3 unknown forces on each member, but I see 4 unknowns. Can you tell me why that is?

They're probably jumping a bit ahead.
Since the coefficients of friction are given, that gives us the extra equation $F_A=\mu_A N_A$, effectively eliminating $F_A$ as an unknown.
 
I like Serena said:
Good!
They're probably jumping a bit ahead.
Since the coefficients of friction are given, that gives us the extra equation $F_A=\mu_A N_A$, effectively eliminating $F_A$ as an unknown.

Do you mean to say that the 3 unknown forces my book is referring to are the components bx, by and the normal force Na?
 
Drain Brain said:
Do you mean to say that the 3 unknown forces my book is referring to are the components bx, by and the normal force Na?

That's what I expect yes.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top