Winter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
Here's the paper.

http://www.stepmathematics.org.uk/do...2003paper2.pdf

answer:


I don't understand why the frictional force at C must point to B.
It might point to A and make the answer different.
0
reply
Dystopia
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
Well, given the forces acting on it, the rod can't be on the point of moving upwards.
0
reply
Winter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#3
(Original post by Dystopia)
Well, given the forces acting on it, the rod can't be on the point of moving upwards.
Could you explain the reason?
why can't it be like that? ( see attachment )
Attached files
0
reply
DFranklin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
I may be missing something, but I don't see an easy way of showing the friction from the cylinder can't act downwards, even though I think it's "obvious" that it doesn't. I don't know what happens if you actually solve the problem starting with that assumption, you either find a contradiction or that the question setter slipped up, I guess.
0
reply
Dystopia
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
(Original post by DFranklin)
I may be missing something, but I don't see an easy way of showing the friction from the cylinder can't act downwards, even though I think it's "obvious" that it doesn't. I don't know what happens if you actually solve the problem starting with that assumption, you either find a contradiction or that the question setter slipped up, I guess.
Yes, it's one of those things that are so obvious that you struggle to see how it could be proved...

Would this be acceptable?

If the friction from the cylinder acts downwards, then the rod is on the point of slipping 'up', so the friction at A would also have to act to the left. Resolving horizontally (to ground) shows that it cannot be in equilibrium.
0
reply
Winter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#6
(Original post by Dystopia)
Yes, it's one of those things that are so obvious that you struggle to see how it could be proved...

Would this be acceptable?

If the friction from the cylinder acts downwards, then the rod is on the point of slipping 'up', so the friction at A would also have to act to the left. Resolving horizontally (to ground) shows that it cannot be in equilibrium.
Fair enough.
Thank you.
I didn't realise frictional force is to prevent the motion.
0
reply
DFranklin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
I'm unsure, to be honest. It's the "friction at A acts towards C, friction at C acts towards A" case I'm struggling to rule out. Common sense says "it doesn't happen", but the "friction is limiting at A and B because they're pushing towards each other frantically for no obvious reason" case doesn't actually seem impossible from a mathematical point of view.

The only "formal" way I see of ruling it out is to show that from the equilibrium position with limiting friction, you can actually reduce the frictional force without losing equilibrium, so it wasn't actually limiting friction after all.

Or I'm just being stupid.
0
reply
Winter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#8
(Original post by DFranklin)
I'm unsure, to be honest. It's the "friction at A acts towards C, friction at C acts towards A" case I'm struggling to rule out. Common sense says "it doesn't happen", but the "friction is limiting at A and B because they're pushing towards each other frantically for no obvious reason" case doesn't actually seem impossible from a mathematical point of view.

The only "formal" way I see of ruling it out is to show that from the equilibrium position with limiting friction, you can actually reduce the frictional force without losing equilibrium, so it wasn't actually limiting friction after all.

Or I'm just being stupid.
I agree with you.
What I thought was a bit weird.
let's say the rod tends to slip down if smooth everywhere.
The frictional force at A is trying to stop it from slipping down.
Then the frictional force at A might contribute too much.
The rod tends to slip up instead.
The frictional force at B has to stop it.

but at the end, i found it might be a bit silly.:p:
the reason is what you've said.
"you can actually reduce the frictional force without losing equilibrium, so it wasn't actually limiting friction after all."
0
reply
DFranklin
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
In practice, I think you're supposed to think:

Suppose there wasn't any friction with the floor. Then the friction with the cylinder has to act towards B to stop sliding.

And suppose instead there wasn't any friction with the cylinder. Then the friction with the floor has to act towards B to stop sliding.

But the friction is all acting together to stop sliding. So it all must act towards B.

I'm not sure if that's actually rigourous, though.
0
reply
Winter
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#10
Thank you.
i think i understand now.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Bristol
    Undergraduate Open Afternoon Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Nottingham
    Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (154)
59.46%
No I haven't decided yet (60)
23.17%
Yes but I might change my mind (45)
17.37%

Watched Threads

View All