Sum of torques, equilibrium problem

Click For Summary
To solve the equilibrium problem, the total force required to hold up the mass equals the gravitational force on all objects, totaling 137 N. The torque calculations involve setting the point of force application as the rotational axis, with the need to account for the rod's mass by integrating its torque contribution. The rod can be divided into two sections to simplify calculations, or one can use the center of mass for torque analysis. The discussion emphasizes using the end of the rod as the axis for easier algebraic manipulation. The approach of integrating the torque from the rod is suggested for a more accurate solution.
Jaccobtw
Messages
163
Reaction score
32
Homework Statement
A horizontal 2 kg rod is 2 m long. An 8 kg block is suspended from its left end, and a 4 kg block is suspended from its right end. (a) Determine the magnitude and direction of the single extra force necessary to keep the rod in mechanical equilibrium. (b) At what distance from the left end of the rod must the point of application of this force be?
Relevant Equations
Torque = perpendicular F * radius
Σ T = 0
For part a, A force must be applied so that the entire mass can be 'held up'. Therefore the necessary force must be equal to the gravitation force on all the objects:

m(rod) * 9.8 + m(LB) * 9.8 + m(RB) * 9.8 = 137 N

For part b, (This is where I'm confused) let's set the point at which the force is to be applied as the rotational axis. This will be a distance x from the left end of the rod and we will solve for x.

Torque 1 = r(1) * m(LB) * g = x * m(LB) * g (counterclockwise)
Torque 2 = r(2) + m(RB) * g = - (l-x) * m(LB) * g (clockwise)
Torque 3 = ?

The third torque should be from the mass of the rod, but I'm confused. Should we divide the mass of the rod into two parts and find the center of mass of each part and then set one of them as a clockwise torque and the other as a counterclockwise torque? Thanks for your help
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Assume the rod is of uniform thickness along its length. Then it will have a linear density of L = 1 kg / m.

So now, with the rod supported at x, the torque produced by some small portion of the rod can be calculated. You could break the rod into two parts, one length x, the other 2-x. You could then look up the torque results for rotating a rod around its end.

Or you could be brave and do the integral. Remember that Torque 1 and Torque 2 are special cases of this integral where you have assumed the blocks have zero extent. For the rod you can't do that. You will need to integrate $$\int L s ds$$ from s = -x to s = 2-x.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaccobtw
DEvens said:
Assume the rod is of uniform thickness along its length. Then it will have a linear density of L = 1 kg / m.

So now, with the rod supported at x, the torque produced by some small portion of the rod can be calculated. You could break the rod into two parts, one length x, the other 2-x. You could then look up the torque results for rotating a rod around its end.

Or you could be brave and do the integral. Remember that Torque 1 and Torque 2 are special cases of this integral where you have assumed the blocks have zero extent. For the rod you can't do that. You will need to integrate $$\int L s ds$$ from s = -x to s = 2-x.

Brave it'd be indeed haha. I supposed we could also use the center of mass of the rod and use it as a clockwise torque:

Torque 3 = -(l/2 - x) * m(rod) * g

I'm wondering what you think?
 
Jaccobtw said:
lets set the point at which the force is to be applied as the rotational axis
The algebra would be simpler using one end as the axis, preferably the end x is measured from.
Jaccobtw said:
Torque 3 = -(l/2 - x) * m(rod) * g
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes Jaccobtw
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
893
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K