Net Reaction Force: Where do the Forces Act?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the points of net reaction forces acting on a rod placed over two equal blocks with a gap in between. The user poses a question about how the forces are distributed, considering the gravitational force on the rod and the normal forces exerted by the blocks. A simpler analogy involving a rod on a flat surface is suggested to illustrate the concept of moments and equilibrium. It is noted that while the problem involves two reaction forces, they should be treated as separate contact forces rather than associating the net reaction force with a specific position. The challenge lies in the underdetermined nature of the problem, with more unknowns than equations available to solve it.
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
25,837
Reaction score
258
I'm trying to write a Library entry on Reaction Force, and I've discovered I can't answer this very simple question. :redface:
Two equal blocks are on a horizontal table, with a gap between them.

A straight rod is placed above the gap, but not symmetrically, resting on both blocks, with an extensive area of contact with each block.

At what points do the two net reaction forces act? :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wouldn't the rod actually have an equally distributed pressure acting against it due to each rod? Assuming a normal gravitational environment, the gravitational force on the rod would be mg. The normal forces on the rod would be as follows:

l \leftarrowThe length of rod on the two rods (not the length of the rod)
d_{1} \leftarrow The length of the rod on cube 1
d_{2} \leftarrow The length of the rod on cube 2
d_{t} \leftarrow The width of the rod
P_{r} \leftarrow The pressure exerted by the cubes on the rod

\Sigma F_{y}= 0
mg = P_{r}*d_{t}*(d_{1}+d_{2})

Note that

d_{1}+d_{2} = l

In a FBD, you could then simulate the two equally distributed pressures as point forces acting at the midpoint of their applied length, i.e.

\frac{d_{1}}{2} and \frac{d_{2}}{2}

Thoughts?
 
Hi tiny-tim,

Let's just think of a one-level simpler case first. Suppose a rod is resting on a flat surface but a bit of it is protruding out. Let the weights of the portions on and off the table be W1 and W2, and the distances of the CMs of these two parts from the edge of the table be x1 and x2 respectively.

Suppose the net reaction N, acting upward, is at a distance x from the edge. W1>W2, so that the rod does not topple, and x1 and x2 are known.

Then N = W1 +W2 and W1*x1 = W2*x2 + N*x, taking the moment about the edge. (Of course, moment can be taken about any point.)

This gives you a unique x, and the location of N.

Of course you know this, but I’m sure this can be generalised to your case. I’m sorry that I can’t verify that right now, but I’ve to go, but surely I'll do it later and see what comes out. Let us know how it goes. Best of luck.
 
I agree that it's an equilibrium problem and that you use both Newton's 2nd Law in translational and rotational form... but I don't think one should associate the net reaction force with a position, because it's not a contact force. The two reaction forces are both contact forces should be considered separately.

The problem is that there are only two equations and four unknowns (both forces and their positions make four). I think that it's actually fairly common to have statics problems that are under determined.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top