Solving Statics Questions: Radio Tower, Fw, Fv, Fh

  • Thread starter Thread starter eurekameh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Statics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the forces acting on a radio tower supported by a cable, specifically the vertical force (Fv) and horizontal force (Fh) from the ground. Fv is identified as the normal force exerted by the ground on the tower, while Fh is the horizontal reaction force necessary to balance the horizontal component of cable tension. Participants express concern about relying solely on friction for stability, suggesting that a more secure fixing at the base of the mast is preferable. It is noted that Fh could be negative, indicating it acts in the opposite direction to what might be expected. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of these forces to prevent movement of the tower under various conditions.
eurekameh
Messages
209
Reaction score
0
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/217/unledsdb.png/
So in the picture, we have a radio tower supported by a cable. W is the weight of the radio tower, Fw is the force of the wind, and T is the tension from the cable.

I want to clarify if Fv (a vertical force) is also the normal force on the tower from the floor.
I also want to ask why there is Fh, a horizontal force on the tower from the floor. Is this Fh a force of friction because the tower has an impending motion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Fv is the vertical reaction of the ground on the antenna mast.

Fh is the horizontal reaction of the ground on the antenna mast.
It would be foolish to leave this to friction rather than a positive fixing at the foot of the mast.
If you think about it, it is the only horizontal force available to balance the horisontal component of the cable tension, if the wind does not blow.
I would hazard a guess that when Fh is calculated it turns out to be negative, since it appears (to me) to point in the wrong direction.

go well
 
Studiot said:
Fv is the vertical reaction of the ground on the antenna mast.

Fh is the horizontal reaction of the ground on the antenna mast.
It would be foolish to leave this to friction rather than a positive fixing at the foot of the mast.
If you think about it, it is the only horizontal force available to balance the horisontal component of the cable tension, if the wind does not blow.
I would hazard a guess that when Fh is calculated it turns out to be negative, since it appears (to me) to point in the wrong direction.

go well

Fh is negative, so it does point in the opposite direction. But what I'm really asking is, what is causing this vertical / horizontal force on the tower / antenna mast(?) ?
Can we just say that it's a vertical / horizontal force on the tower from the floor? Or can we be more specific in saying that the vertical force is the normal force on the tower from the floor and that the horizontal force is a frictional force?
I'm not understanding "It would be foolish to leave this to friction rather than a positive fixing at the foot of the mast."
 
I don't know you background but if you push (or pull) against something and it does not move it pushes back at you with equal force.

This return push is called the reaction or reactive force.

So when you stand on the ground you push down on the ground with your weight and the ground pushes back up on you with an equal and opposite reaction so you do not sink into the ground.

That is a vertical reaction.

Similarly if you push horizontally against a wall, it pushes back with an equal and opposite horizontal reaction force.

Since there are horizontal forces acting in your diagram, there must be a horizontal reaction.
This may be provided by friction or it may be because the base is spiked into the ground. It does not matter which, the force must be there or the base of the tower will move.

I simply observed that only a fool would rely on friction being strong enough in such a situation. There is no magic in this.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top