# Help! M2 Moments problem.

Announcements
#1
Hello!

I am stuck on a problem, I've taken it as far as I can but no progress

A uniform rod of length 2𝑎 runs from A to B and has mass 𝑘𝑚 where 𝑘=3. The rod is fixed at the point A and is freely hinged to another uniform rod of length 2𝑎 and mass 𝑚 at the point B. Both rods are in equilibrium with the first rod horizontal and the second inclined at angle 𝜃=30∘ to the vertical, with its unhinged end in contact with the rough floor. The coefficient of friction between the rod and the floor is 𝜇.

https://isaacphysics.org/api/images/...hinged_rod.svg

So I labelled all the forces like so in this picture:

https://isaacphysics.org/api/images/...inged_rod2.svg

And by resolving and equating the forces I have

4mg = M + R
N = F

Taking pivot around A I have
(11/2)mg + Fsqrt(3) = 3R

2M + Fsqrt(3) = (5/2)mg + R

3M + Nsqrt(3) = (13/2)mg

So I need to find minimum mew, so that F <= mewR

Now when I try to solve the equations, all I end up with is (11/2)mg + Fsqrt(3) = 3R and really don't know how to progress.

Any Ideas?
0
#2
Oh above, after moments about B, I took moments about C as well.

They all just give me the same thing, I i suppose it's reassuring all the equations are consistent, just no way to find the mew!
0
#3
No one with any ideas?
0
7 years ago
#4
(Original post by h2shin)
No one with any ideas?
When mu is a minimum, you'll have Your problem is that you are treating the whole structure ABC as one thing and that's not generating enough information. BUT each of the two parts AB, BC is itself in static equilibrium.

E.g. You can take moments about B for just AB, which will give you M, and thus you can work out R from your initial equation. And so on.

On a quick calculation I got mu to be:

1
#5
(Original post by ghostwalker)
When mu is a minimum, you'll have Your problem is that you are treating the whole structure ABC as one thing and that's not generating enough information. BUT each of the two parts AB, BC is itself in static equilibrium.

E.g. You can take moments about B for just AB, which will give you M, and thus you can work out R from your initial equation. And so on.

On a quick calculation I got mu to be:

AHH!! Right. I thought that was to do with it but the random x's and y's were confusing the hell out of me as well. thanks!

So it's exactly like a connected newton's third law system problem in M1 just in two dimension! with forces at B just cancelling out when you look at the whole system and taken out of the picture when I take pivot around B to equate the torque.

So simple but you helped me get there 0
7 years ago
#6
(Original post by h2shin)
AHH!! Right. I thought that was to do with it but the random x's and y's were confusing the hell out of me as well. thanks!
np.

PS: I used the equations you posted without checking them to work out my answer.
0
#7
(Original post by ghostwalker)
np.

PS: I used the equations you posted without checking them to work out my answer.
I got the same answer as you The internal forces all cancelled out / were not relevant to the torque that's being calculated.

Thanks so much, this question was annoying me the whole day.

Just because the connected objects problem was taken from 1 dimension to 2 it just completely threw me off. argh.
0
X

new posts Back
to top
Latest

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Does school Maths prepare people well enough for the future?

Yes, it gives everyone a good foundation for any future path (50)
30.12%
Somewhat, if your future involves maths/STEM (73)
43.98%
No, it doesn't teach enough practical life skills (41)
24.7%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (2)
1.2%