Rod and we pull one end of it with a 10N force

  • Thread starter Thread starter chandran
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Pull Rod
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, the application of a 10N force on one end of a fixed rod raises questions about the existence of force and acceleration. It is clarified that while there is no net force acting on the rod, forces are still present, creating tension within the rod due to opposing forces. The concept of force is distinguished from net force, emphasizing that forces can exist without causing acceleration. An analogy is made with a stationary book on a table, where gravitational force is balanced by the normal force, illustrating the presence of forces even in static situations. Overall, the conversation highlights the distinction between force and net force, reinforcing that forces are always at play, regardless of acceleration.
chandran
Messages
137
Reaction score
1
an example problem statement
there is a rod and we pull one end of it with a 10N force with the other end fixed.

recall that a force acts on a body only when it accelerates. But in the above problem is it correct to say that 10N force is applied (i see
that there is no force applied on it since there is no acceleration of the rod)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the other end is fixed, then it will apply a normal force of magnitude 10N to whatever it is fixed to. It's net force is zero.
 
chandran said:
recall that a force acts on a body only when it accelerates.
This isn't true. A NET force acts on a body if it accelerates. Or more properly, an object will accelerate only if it has a net force acting on it.
 
There is no net force. Because there are forces, acting in opposite directions at the ends of the rod, there is tension in the rod.
 
On Earth a stationary book on a tabletop (in a vacuum blah blah blah) is still being pulled down by a force, namely gravity but that is balanced by the normal force of the table pushing up on the book. So there are no net forces, like the others have said, but there are forces. Forces are ubiquitous and invisible.
 
Nope.Gravity determines a pressure force by the book acting on the table.The reaction force is its pair in the spirit of Newton's III-rd principle.

Daniel.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top