- #1

- 14

- 0

hello,

i have a problem i have having trouble solving, it reads as follows:

a vertical pole is supported by two ropes, each 5m from the base of the pole. The rope to the right of the pole extends 3m up the pole, and the rope to the left of the pole extends 4.5m up the pole. The ropes and pole lie in the same vertical plane. The mast cannot provide any moment of force about its base. What is the ratio of the tension of the two supporting ropes, where the tension is marked as the hypotenuse of the two triangles formed on each side of the pole?

I realise that for the pole to remain in equilibrium, the forces acting on it must have a vector sum of zero, and the sum of the moments of force must also equal zero. I have found the forces acting on the pole at the point of each ropes attachment, and are 10N for the lower rope on the right, and 6.67N for the higher rope on the left. Is the ratio between these forces the same as the ratio between the tension on the ropes?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

i have a problem i have having trouble solving, it reads as follows:

a vertical pole is supported by two ropes, each 5m from the base of the pole. The rope to the right of the pole extends 3m up the pole, and the rope to the left of the pole extends 4.5m up the pole. The ropes and pole lie in the same vertical plane. The mast cannot provide any moment of force about its base. What is the ratio of the tension of the two supporting ropes, where the tension is marked as the hypotenuse of the two triangles formed on each side of the pole?

I realise that for the pole to remain in equilibrium, the forces acting on it must have a vector sum of zero, and the sum of the moments of force must also equal zero. I have found the forces acting on the pole at the point of each ropes attachment, and are 10N for the lower rope on the right, and 6.67N for the higher rope on the left. Is the ratio between these forces the same as the ratio between the tension on the ropes?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Last edited: