Back
to top
M3 Elastic Springs
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
https://gyazo.com/511685f0a4f7e44488188d6121d3a115
I tried equating the weight of the uniform rod to the to the vertical component of the tension in the string as well as using moments about point P, what else should I try?
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by moz4rt)
I tried equating the weight of the uniform rod to the to the vertical component of the tension in the string as well as using moments about point P, what else should I try?
I tried equating the weight of the uniform rod to the to the vertical component of the tension in the string as well as using moments about point P, what else should I try?
Resolving vertically won't work, since you don't know the vertical reaction at P.
0
reply
Report
#3
(Original post by moz4rt)
![Image]()
https://gyazo.com/511685f0a4f7e44488188d6121d3a115
I tried equating the weight of the uniform rod to the to the vertical component of the tension in the string as well as using moments about point P, what else should I try?
https://gyazo.com/511685f0a4f7e44488188d6121d3a115
I tried equating the weight of the uniform rod to the to the vertical component of the tension in the string as well as using moments about point P, what else should I try?
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by Faction Paradox)
Moments about point P are going to be the way to go, as the is a force upwards at P, so equating the weight is not going to give you the actual vertical force at Q.
Moments about point P are going to be the way to go, as the is a force upwards at P, so equating the weight is not going to give you the actual vertical force at Q.
Edit: I also got that the natural length = 75/31 = 2.419m.
0
reply
I got the correct answer this time, but instead of using the distance from P to Q I used the distance from P to R, can someone explain why this worked?
0
reply
Nevermind haha, for some reason I was using the distance on the line PR rather than using the line PQ, thanks!
0
reply
Also, why is there a reaction force at the hinge, but not the fixed point?
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by moz4rt)
Nevermind haha, for some reason I was using the distance on the line PR rather than using the line PQ, thanks!
Nevermind haha, for some reason I was using the distance on the line PR rather than using the line PQ, thanks!
0
reply
Report
#9
(Original post by moz4rt)
I got the correct answer this time, but instead of using the distance from P to Q I used the distance from P to R, can someone explain why this worked?
I got the correct answer this time, but instead of using the distance from P to Q I used the distance from P to R, can someone explain why this worked?
0
reply
(Original post by Nagromicous)
Was the answer I said correct?
Was the answer I said correct?
0
reply
Report
#11
(Original post by moz4rt)
Also, why is there a reaction force at the hinge, but not the fixed point?
Also, why is there a reaction force at the hinge, but not the fixed point?
But there is a reaction force at R, it has the same magnitude as the tension and acts in the opposite direction, as otherwise the system wouldn't be in equilibrium.
0
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by moz4rt)
No, it was 3g/2, what did you do?
No, it was 3g/2, what did you do?
5g x (3/2) x cos(a) = 3T
4.5g = 3T
T = 1.5g
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- How are you feeling today?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health