1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Static Equilibrium

  1. Aug 10, 2012 #1
    1.we know that generally, every force systems can be replaced by a resultant force(R) and a couple(M) at a point O. the position of point O is optional.
    but magnitude and direction of M is dependent to this point while magnitude and direction of R is independent.
    In static equilibrium R and M are zero at an optional point O. now this is the question:




    2.While M is zero at an optional point O, why should we conclude that M would be zero at every point chosen( infinite in number of points)...pay attention that " magnitude and direction of M is dependent to the point chosen"....
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 10, 2012 #2

    CWatters

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Static implies no translation or rotation. eg No rotation about any point.
     
  4. Aug 10, 2012 #3

    BruceW

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Welcome to physics forums, emohabatzadeh! Your name is hard to type! (no offence intended). You should try to answer the question first, before asking for help on this forum (that's the rules). And if you have tried several things, but not gotten very far, then write them down, so we can see where you need help to be able to get to the answer.
     
  5. Aug 10, 2012 #4
    "static implies no translation or rotation"....but it seems that for proving "no rotation about any point" you should calculate the resultant couple moment about any point and specify that the resultant couple equals to zero for any point !!!( because the couple is dependent to the points position) ----I mean we don't know the object is in static equilibrium or not and we want to determine it... why do we consider that if M is zero about a point, it means that it is zero about any point? is there a theorem about this? is it provable? sorry for grammatical errors if I have and hope that you understand what I mean...
     
  6. Aug 10, 2012 #5
    thanks and you can call me with the nickname Estak...!!
    in fact I have no answer to the question...it's not a numerical problem...it's a fundamental problem...!! perhaps the question should be answered by a theorem...
     
  7. Aug 14, 2012 #6

    BruceW

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    looking back at your first post, I don't really get what the part 1) is trying to say... You said that the part 2) is the actual question. If I was reading just the stuff in part 2), I would guess that M means moment, not couple. What is the exact question? Maybe I will be able to help better if I see that.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Static Equilibrium
  1. Static equilibrium (Replies: 1)

  2. Static Equilibrium (Replies: 4)

  3. Static equilibrium (Replies: 2)

  4. Static Equilibrium (Replies: 5)

Loading...