Two men want to carry a wooden beam weighing 200

  • Thread starter Thread starter NoBodyKnows
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Beam Weighing
AI Thread Summary
Two men are attempting to carry a 200 lbs wooden beam that is 20 feet long, with one man wanting to bear 50% more weight than the other. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding torque and balancing forces to determine the correct positioning of each man along the beam. The stronger man should carry a greater proportion of the weight, which can be simplified using ratios. By dividing the total weight into parts, the men can effectively position themselves to maintain balance. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in problem-solving and the application of fundamental physics principles.
NoBodyKnows
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Not sure about this one, any help?

Two men want to carry a wooden beam weighing 200 lbs which is 20 feet long. Both men are equal height however one is stronger than the other and wishes to bear 50% more the weight. How far from the end of the beam should both of the men be to make this possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Hi NoBodyKnows, welcome to PF!

For future reference, this should be in the Homework Help subforum and should be posted using the template for homework problems. Hopefully a moderator will move it.

What have you done so far for this problem? Are you familiar with the concept of torque? Also, you can easily work out the ratio between the force exerted by the stronger man and that exerted by the weaker man, right?
 


I understand the idea of using torques. We're trying to separate the lifts into two different problems. Main problem being that the distance we'd use in any formula is relative to what? the center of the beam?
 


NoBodyKnows said:
I understand the idea of using torques. We're trying to separate the lifts into two different problems. Main problem being that the distance we'd use in any formula is relative to what? the center of the beam?

Yeah, relative to the point around which the torques would be exerted. It follows just from the definition of torque that if you're trying to prevent a net rotational acceleration about the centre of mass of the beam, you'd balance the torques about that point, meaning that all of your lever arms would be measured relative to that point.
 


For static problems, in general you can do the following:

Write down the equation that total force is zero (of course take forces as vector with direction, i.e. consider the sign)

Write down total torque about any single point of your choice and equate total torque to zero. Make sure that you take the force component perpendicular to the line to your "center point".

Only for non-stationary problems the torque from external forces and moment of inertia should be taken about the center of mass.

Ah... however, don't forget the gravitational force if you don't use the center of mass as your "center torque point".
 


I would not refer to torque at all when solving this problem, or moments of inertia. It is a simple matter of segmentation. One fellow wants to lift 50% more than the other. So use ratios. Break it down to simple whole numbers. One fellow carries 2 apples - the stronger fella carries 3 apples - that makes a total of 5 apples. It is easy to mentally divide the beam into 5 equal parts and then decide where the two people should be stationed.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top