Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  M1 Moments.PNG
Views: 1205
Size:  103.6 KB

    Last question of the exercise has completely baffled me. Could someone help me and tell me what is going on here. How does (Rd) being negative show that the rod will tilt? Furthermore I thought that Rd should be 0 N in this case because the rod is about to tilt about point C?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Name:  M1 Moments.PNG
Views: 1205
Size:  103.6 KB

    Last question of the exercise has completely baffled me. Could someone help me and tell me what is going on here. How does (Rd) being negative show that the rod will tilt? Furthermore I thought that Rd should be 0 N in this case because the rod is about to tilt about point C?
    if thats off the edexcel solution bank some of the solutions have errors
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Name:  M1 Moments.PNG
Views: 1205
Size:  103.6 KB

    Last question of the exercise has completely baffled me. Could someone help me and tell me what is going on here. How does (Rd) being negative show that the rod will tilt? Furthermore I thought that Rd should be 0 N in this case because the rod is about to tilt about point C?
    Its the fact that RD cannot be negative that demonstrates it is about to tilt, as the system cannot be in equilibrium. It can't be negative as it points upwards (in the positive direction) in the diagram.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by upthegunners)
    if thats off the edexcel solution bank some of the solutions have errors
    There's no error here
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indeterminate)
    There's no error here
    I was just making sure the OP knows that I wasn't in the position to say if there was or wasn't an error as I am only an Alevel student myself
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Its the fact that RD cannot be negative that demonstrates it is about to tilt, as the system cannot be in equilibrium. It can't be negative as it points upwards (in the positive direction) in the diagram.
    Thanks; and sorry to bother you for the third (hopefully final) time but I am also stuck on part c). Similar to the first question I asked (how would I know where the force E is meant to be acting down on the rod). You mentioned that there must be a force acting on either side of the support; in this case I took moments about C; how would I know that E sits in between C and D? I initially thought that E would sit after between D and B but was wrong.

    Name:  m1m1.PNG
Views: 665
Size:  105.2 KB
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Thanks; and sorry to bother you for the third (hopefully final) time but I am also stuck on part c). Similar to the first question I asked (how would I know where the force E is meant to be acting down on the rod). You mentioned that there must be a force acting on either side of the support; in this case I took moments about C; how would I know that E sits in between C and D? I initially thought that E would sit after between D and B but was wrong.

    Name:  m1m1.PNG
Views: 665
Size:  105.2 KB
    This question is slightly different.
    You don't need to know where the force acts, other than it is to the right of C, in order to counterbalance the force at A
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    This question is slightly different.
    You don't need to know where the force acts, other than it is to the right of C, in order to counterbalance the force at A
    Also , does "equilibrium" mean the same as "about to tilt". The question says the weight holds it in equilibrium, but the answer scheme says that it is about to tilt at C and so Rd = 0 N
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Also , does "equilibrium" mean the same as "about to tilt". The question says the weight holds it in equilibrium, but the answer scheme says that it is about to tilt at C and so Rd = 0 N
    Equilibrium means that it is not tilting at all - i.e. the forces are in complete balance. Anticlockwise moments = clockwise moments etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Equilibrium means that it is not tilting at all - i.e. the forces are in complete balance. Anticlockwise moments = clockwise moments etc.
    Is that an error on Edexcels part in the answer? The question says it is held in equilibrium yet the mark scheme says "if the system is just about to tilt about C". In equilibrium I would be considering Rd but it is ignored.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The solution uses the method for calculating equilibrium, so I think the idea is to show that equilibrium cannot be calculated in that situation. I did it like this (although my numbers seem a bit different?):

    Name:  uploadfromtaptalk1365084588056.jpg
Views: 628
Size:  66.4 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Is that an error on Edexcels part in the answer? The question says it is held in equilibrium yet the mark scheme says "if the system is just about to tilt about C". In equilibrium I would be considering Rd but it is ignored.
    Picture it in your mind, if it is just about to tilt, but not actually tilting about C what would be happening at D?
    It would be just about to lift off of D, but not quite, yes?
    This means that the force supporting at D is no longer applied as the force to support the beam is no longer required.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stuart_aitken)
    The solution uses the method for calculating equilibrium, so I think the idea is to show that equilibrium cannot be calculated in that situation. I did it like this (although my numbers seem a bit different?):

    Name:  uploadfromtaptalk1365084588056.jpg
Views: 628
Size:  66.4 KB

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Except I don't think you can use the value of Rd =5N from the previous situation into this situation. Since the 12N has been added I think it affects the value of Rd
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Picture it in your mind, if it is just about to tilt, but not actually tilting about C what would be happening at D?
    It would be just about to lift off of D, but not quite, yes?
    This means that the force supporting at D is no longer applied as the force to support the beam is no longer required.
    I understand how Rd would be 0 in the situation that C is just about to tilt; but its not, the question part c states it is held in equilibrium. As you said before, equilibrium means it is not tilting at all, so how did they bring that situation into the solution
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    I understand how Rd would be 0 in the situation that C is just about to tilt; but its not, the question part c states it is held in equilibrium. As you said before, equilibrium means it is not tilting at all, so how did they bring that situation into the solution
    Are you familiar with
    \ F_{Max} \leq \mu R?
    You see that limiting friction means it is just about to slide, but is not yet sliding, here the principle is the same with the tilt.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Except I don't think you can use the value of Rd =5N from the previous situation into this situation. Since the 12N has been added I think it affects the value of Rd
    Actually yeah you're right. I totally convoluted it, haha.

    Just think about moments around C when the weight is applied.

    MomentC=(12x2)-(20x0.5)=14Nm

    Therefore resultant moment!

    And yeah, the mention of 'negative RD' in the solution is really daft! Pointless empty nonsensical figure!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joostan)
    Are you familiar with
    \ F_{Max} \leq \mu R?
    You see that limiting friction means it is just about to slide, but is not yet sliding, here the principle is the same with the tilt.
    Ah that made it a lot clearer thanks
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scientific222)
    Ah that made it a lot clearer thanks
    NP
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.