- #31
etotheipi
hutchphd said:
I would say that all meanings are equal, but some meanings are more equal than others...
Is the Total Radial Force on a Current-Carrying Hoop Zero?
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around the concept of the total radial force on a current-carrying hoop placed in a uniform magnetic field. Participants explore the implications of this force, its calculation, and the terminology used to describe it, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants argue that the total radial force on the hoop is zero due to the cancellation of forces around the loop, while others contend that the radial forces cause compression or expansion of the ring.
- There is a discussion about the usefulness of the term "total radial force," with some suggesting it is not a useful quantity and others defending its relevance for calculations of stresses.
- One participant raises a concern about the distinction between "total" and "net" forces, suggesting they are synonymous, while another insists they have different meanings in the context of physics.
- Some participants express skepticism about the necessity of defining a new quantity for radial force, preferring to use established terms like radial, tangential, and normal stresses.
- There are references to examples, such as the force needed to squeeze an eggshell, to illustrate points about force and pressure in different contexts.
- Participants also discuss the implications of terminology in scientific communication, with references to various educational resources that use "total" and "net" interchangeably.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the interpretation of total radial force, its usefulness, and the terminology surrounding it. Participants express differing opinions on the definitions of "total" and "net" forces, indicating a lack of consensus.
Contextual Notes
Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the definitions of terms and the context in which they are used, particularly regarding the calculation of forces and stresses in physical systems.
I would say that all meanings are equal, but some meanings are more equal than others...
- #32
- 20,815
- 28,458
Linguistic Treatment
Given that the term net force is used in a certain context. If then appears total force on the stage, it must be something different, as otherwise there wouldn't be a need to switch terms. Magnitude is the only possibility left.
Given that total force appears alone, the question is, what does the adjective indicate? If it is used as a singular, then total has to indicate magnitude since otherwise unspecified force would have done the job, and again there wouldn't be a necessity for the adjective.
Given total forces is used as plural and alone, i.e. without the term net forces, then further context is necessary, since total only indicates that there are several of a kind. How these total contribute to certain directions is completely unclear and an interpretation as sum of magnitudes still possible - and in my opinion more likely than the resultant, which I would not specify as total because its ambiguity. Classical Mechanics Treatment
The word total should be specified in its usage, since it neither automatically implies a summation nor specifies the nature of what should possibly be added, or if it even allows an addition. Look up the specification within the given context. Examples for the need to distinguish meanings can be found here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/total-radial-force-on-a-hoop.991385/#post-6367379Humpty Dumpty Treatment
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/total-radial-force-on-a-hoop.991385/page-2#post-6367789Total Résumé
Both adjectives are borrowed from common language, i.e. there is no definition available as it is for force. Hence we are forced to consider common English. And as with every context sensitive specification, discussions can go on forever as participants tend to switch between these contexts to refute each other. It is meaning- and senseless to have such a discussion.Net Résumé
Just because we do not allow topics like religion, politics, and philosophy does not mean you should search for substitutes. Authors have the right to use their own definitions as long as they do not collide with commonly known ones. So argue with the authors of textbooks, although I dare to claim that they won't answer.Outlook
Is there any reason not to close this thread?
Given that the term net force is used in a certain context. If then appears total force on the stage, it must be something different, as otherwise there wouldn't be a need to switch terms. Magnitude is the only possibility left.
Given that total force appears alone, the question is, what does the adjective indicate? If it is used as a singular, then total has to indicate magnitude since otherwise unspecified force would have done the job, and again there wouldn't be a necessity for the adjective.
Given total forces is used as plural and alone, i.e. without the term net forces, then further context is necessary, since total only indicates that there are several of a kind. How these total contribute to certain directions is completely unclear and an interpretation as sum of magnitudes still possible - and in my opinion more likely than the resultant, which I would not specify as total because its ambiguity. Classical Mechanics Treatment
General Treatmentpbuk said:
The word total should be specified in its usage, since it neither automatically implies a summation nor specifies the nature of what should possibly be added, or if it even allows an addition. Look up the specification within the given context. Examples for the need to distinguish meanings can be found here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/total-radial-force-on-a-hoop.991385/#post-6367379Humpty Dumpty Treatment
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/total-radial-force-on-a-hoop.991385/page-2#post-6367789Total Résumé
Both adjectives are borrowed from common language, i.e. there is no definition available as it is for force. Hence we are forced to consider common English. And as with every context sensitive specification, discussions can go on forever as participants tend to switch between these contexts to refute each other. It is meaning- and senseless to have such a discussion.Net Résumé
Just because we do not allow topics like religion, politics, and philosophy does not mean you should search for substitutes. Authors have the right to use their own definitions as long as they do not collide with commonly known ones. So argue with the authors of textbooks, although I dare to claim that they won't answer.Outlook
Is there any reason not to close this thread?
- #33
etotheipi
fresh_42 said:
I do see your point, but I would disagree. I can find many examples where they are used synonymously even within the same reference. And my comprehension of the terms is that they are analogous.
fresh_42 said:
Nope, I think we are done here. I must now leave anyway!
- #34
pbuk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
- 4,973
- 3,225
etotheipi said:
And is this the same as the net force (I think we can assume that the vessel is not accelerating)?
etotheipi said:
etotheipi said:
etotheipi said:
- #35
etotheipi
Well it does make clear to say "the total force due to the internal pressure". Yes I would say we could also call it the net force due to the internal pressure. Tomato tomato, the important consideration is that we are performing a surface integral of the vertical components of a vector field over a curved surface (or indeed the surface integral of the vector field itself, with lateral components cancelling - it amounts to the same thing), but in cases like this the calculation can be greatly simplified to a multiplication by a projected area.
The total or net force on the half pipe in the equilibrium case is zero, since the vertical component due to pressure is balanced by the forces due to circumferential stresses in the pipe walls.
And in no point in the analysis is it necessary to ever bring up an integral of the magnitudes of the pressure forces within the pipe. In fact, I think that would be rather confusing, more than helpful. It's certainly not a helpful quantity for analysing the dynamics
The total or net force on the half pipe in the equilibrium case is zero, since the vertical component due to pressure is balanced by the forces due to circumferential stresses in the pipe walls.
And in no point in the analysis is it necessary to ever bring up an integral of the magnitudes of the pressure forces within the pipe. In fact, I think that would be rather confusing, more than helpful. It's certainly not a helpful quantity for analysing the dynamics
- #36
- #37
etotheipi
pbuk said:
I will take this moment to mention that you still have yet to produce a reference in support of your claim
Similar threads
- · Replies 35 ·
Undergrad
Applying Lorentz Force correctly
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 8 ·
- · Replies 12 ·
- · Replies 6 ·
- · Replies 6 ·
- · Replies 61 ·
Engineering
Loads on a shaft with V-Belts
- · Replies 2 ·