# M2 Moments Question

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

Struggling with some moments questions and here are some of them i would really love some help with

Attachment 635858For this one i'm really not sure how they took moments about O, particularly for mg. Quite confused about the bracket the mg is being multiplied by, i think it may be two distances added together from O, but the the image isnt clear in my head so if anyone could explain this perhaps with some diagram that would be great

for this one i honestly didn't even come up with a proper diagram, i'm really not following with the solution and would like some help here to.

Moments is probbaly the first chapter in m2 giving me this much trouble, does anyone know any good resources as well?

Attachment 635858For this one i'm really not sure how they took moments about O, particularly for mg. Quite confused about the bracket the mg is being multiplied by, i think it may be two distances added together from O, but the the image isnt clear in my head so if anyone could explain this perhaps with some diagram that would be great

for this one i honestly didn't even come up with a proper diagram, i'm really not following with the solution and would like some help here to.

Moments is probbaly the first chapter in m2 giving me this much trouble, does anyone know any good resources as well?

0

reply

Report

#2

(Original post by

Struggling with some moments questions and here are some of them i would really love some help with

Attachment 635858For this one i'm really not sure how they took moments about O, particularly for mg. Quite confused about the bracket the mg is being multiplied by, i think it may be two distances added together from O, but the the image isnt clear in my head so if anyone could explain this perhaps with some diagram that would be great

**NatoHeadshot**)Struggling with some moments questions and here are some of them i would really love some help with

Attachment 635858For this one i'm really not sure how they took moments about O, particularly for mg. Quite confused about the bracket the mg is being multiplied by, i think it may be two distances added together from O, but the the image isnt clear in my head so if anyone could explain this perhaps with some diagram that would be great

In attached, line of action of mg force is in red, and perpendicular distance is the thick green line, which is the sum of the two parts, as you surmised.

1

reply

Report

#3

(Original post by

for this one i honestly didn't even come up with a proper diagram, i'm really not following with the solution and would like some help here to.

**NatoHeadshot**)for this one i honestly didn't even come up with a proper diagram, i'm really not following with the solution and would like some help here to.

What help do you need? What don't you understand? The more specific you can be, the better.

0

reply

(Original post by

The given solution has a misprint; angle EBD is theta, not phi, in the diagram.

What help do you need? What don't you understand? The more specific you can be, the better.

**ghostwalker**)The given solution has a misprint; angle EBD is theta, not phi, in the diagram.

What help do you need? What don't you understand? The more specific you can be, the better.

2) in the first step, when they state F/R=tanthetha? are they using a triangle of forces?

3) How did they work out the angle thetha besides R? and the dotted line beside it (which is Rcostheta) now is connected to a lower point which all the forces pass through could the question be solved doing moment about this point or any other method really?

0

reply

**ghostwalker**)

The given solution has a misprint; angle EBD is theta, not phi, in the diagram.

What help do you need? What don't you understand? The more specific you can be, the better.

I have another question here. They have asked to show that the horizontal force exerted by the ladder on the ground is independent of the mass of the brick "mg"

for this if resolve horizontally and show that S=F, then say F=uR then i find R=W+Mg, it shows that it is involved?

0

reply

Report

#6

(Original post by

1)How did they work out EF in triangle AEF

**NatoHeadshot**)1)How did they work out EF in triangle AEF

And AF = AC + CF = l + CF.

If you do some elementary geometry, you can show CF = l/2, and hence AF = 3l/2.

2) in the first step, when they state F/R=tanthetha? are they using a triangle of forces?

__.__

**phi**There are two different sets of angles referenced in this question, one is theta, and relates to the angle of inclination of the rod, and one is phi and relates to the forces.

The resultant of F and R, (F+R as vectors) must act along the line going through the common point (F). Hence F/R = tan phi.

3) How did they work out the angle thetha besides R? and the dotted line beside it (which is Rcostheta) now is connected to a lower point which all the forces pass through

could the question be solved doing moment about this point or any other method really?

0

reply

Report

#7

(Original post by

I have another question here. They have asked to show that the horizontal force exerted by the ladder on the ground is independent of the mass of the brick "mg"

for this if resolve horizontally and show that S=F, then say F=uR then i find R=W+Mg, it shows that it is involved?

**NatoHeadshot**)I have another question here. They have asked to show that the horizontal force exerted by the ladder on the ground is independent of the mass of the brick "mg"

for this if resolve horizontally and show that S=F, then say F=uR then i find R=W+Mg, it shows that it is involved?

0

reply

(Original post by

EF = AF sin theta.

And AF = AC + CF = l + CF.

If you do some elementary geometry, you can show CF = l/2, and hence AF = 3l/2.

No, they don't say that. F/R = tan

There are two different sets of angles referenced in this question, one is theta, and relates to the angle of inclination of the rod, and one is phi and relates to the forces.

The resultant of F and R, (F+R as vectors) must act along the line going through the common point (F). Hence F/R = tan phi.

It's phi, not theta. And I can't make sense of that.

Almost certainly, but I'm not working it through to find out.

**ghostwalker**)EF = AF sin theta.

And AF = AC + CF = l + CF.

If you do some elementary geometry, you can show CF = l/2, and hence AF = 3l/2.

No, they don't say that. F/R = tan

__.__**phi**There are two different sets of angles referenced in this question, one is theta, and relates to the angle of inclination of the rod, and one is phi and relates to the forces.

The resultant of F and R, (F+R as vectors) must act along the line going through the common point (F). Hence F/R = tan phi.

It's phi, not theta. And I can't make sense of that.

Almost certainly, but I'm not working it through to find out.

0

reply

Report

#9

(Original post by

Do you mean how they worked out phi doesn't make sense or my question?

**NatoHeadshot**)Do you mean how they worked out phi doesn't make sense or my question?

0

reply

(Original post by

Didn't understand your question.

**ghostwalker**)Didn't understand your question.

0

reply

Report

#11

(Original post by

how did they geometrically work out the angle i circled?

**NatoHeadshot**)how did they geometrically work out the angle i circled?

The lines of action of the three forces in equilibrium must go through a common point.

The tension in the string and the weight are enough to define that point.

Hence the line of action of the reaction at the ring must also go through that point, that is the dotted red line on your diagram, from which the angle phi arises.

0

reply

(Original post by

It's involved in the vertical reaction, but that doesn't tell you anything about the horizontal/frictional force. And note F=uR, is only true in limiting equilibrium.

**ghostwalker**)It's involved in the vertical reaction, but that doesn't tell you anything about the horizontal/frictional force. And note F=uR, is only true in limiting equilibrium.

The question says "in order to enable the ladder to rest in equillbrium in the position described above, a brick is attached at the bottom of the ladder without touching the ground"

It says in equilibrium, so why is equating S=F, then say F=uR then i find R=W+Mg wrong? I mean at least it should be because it says that it's independent of the mass of the brick

or can i not say F=uR because they didnt say limiting, so instead it'd be F<=u(W+Mg)

0

reply

Report

#13

(Original post by

Sorry for pestering you so much but im still unclear about this

**NatoHeadshot**)Sorry for pestering you so much but im still unclear about this

The question says "in order to enable the ladder to rest in equillbrium in the position described above, a brick is attached at the bottom of the ladder without touching the ground"

It says in equilibrium, so why is equating S=F, then say F=uR then i find R=W+Mg wrong? I mean at least it should be because it says that it's independent of the mass of the brick

or can i not say F=uR because they didnt say limiting, so instead it'd be F<=u(W+Mg)

It says in equilibrium, so why is equating S=F, then say F=uR then i find R=W+Mg wrong? I mean at least it should be because it says that it's independent of the mass of the brick

or can i not say F=uR because they didnt say limiting, so instead it'd be F<=u(W+Mg)

The question says show the

__horizontal__force exerted by the ladder is independent of the mass of the brick, i.e. the force F.

R, as you've worked out, does depend on the mass of the brick.

You're correct in that you cannot say F= uR, but rather

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top