Frequently Made Errors in Mechanics: Forces - comments

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around common errors in mechanics, particularly related to forces. Participants explore concepts such as the line of action, tension in strings, and the nature of force vectors. The scope includes theoretical clarifications and conceptual misunderstandings in mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that illustrations could clarify the concept of equal and opposite vectors with different lines of action not canceling out.
  • There is a proposal that a string pulled at both ends with a force F is equivalent to a string pulled at one end with a force F attached to a wall, challenging the assumption that tension should be 2F.
  • Concerns are raised about the clarity of the term "line of action," with some participants expressing confusion about its meaning and relevance.
  • One participant notes that many assume a force is fully described by its vector, but the line of action is crucial for understanding moments.
  • Another participant argues that the point of application of a force is important, but the line of action is what truly matters for the effects on a body.
  • There is a discussion about whether a force should be considered a vector or if it should include attributes like line of action and point of application.
  • Some participants question the necessity of describing a force with both a line of action and a point of application, suggesting that a force vector could be adequately described with fewer parameters.
  • One participant asserts that the line of action can be deduced from the point of application and direction, leading to a debate about which attributes of force are essential.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the importance and definition of the line of action, with no consensus reached. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best way to conceptualize forces and their attributes.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference various sources to support their claims about the nature of forces, but there is no agreement on the definitions or implications of these concepts. The discussion highlights the complexity and potential confusion surrounding foundational mechanics concepts.

  • #31
robphy said:
Here are other common errors...
1) "the magnitude of the normal force is always mg" (because of a formula they saw).
2) "the magnitude of the static friction force is always \mu_k N" (because of a formula they saw)
3) "the centripetal force is an additional force drawn on a free-body diagram"
Point 3 I have covered in another post under development.
Points 1 and 2 belong in a much more general FME. I'll add them to my list!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
In my experience,
the errors I listed are much more frequent than any of the ones you listed.
 
  • #33
haruspex said:
Point 3 I have covered in another post under development.
Points 1 and 2 belong in a much more general FME. I'll add them to my list!
Correction:
Point 2 I have already covered in an imminent post on Friction.
 
  • #34
No, a force is neither a tension nor a compression. A force is something one body exerts on another. Tension and compression usually refer to extensive states within a body. You could describe an action/reaction pair as a compression or a tension, but not the two individual forces.
 
  • #35
Thanks a lot this was really helpfull
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K