Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
183_notes:static_eq [2016/03/11 14:22] – [Defining Static Equilibrium] caballero | 183_notes:static_eq [2021/11/15 17:25] (current) – [Lecture Video] pwirving | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | Section 5.4 and 11.5 in Matter and Interactions (4th edition) | ||
+ | |||
===== Static Equilibrium ===== | ===== Static Equilibrium ===== | ||
- | While you are beginning to learn about [[183_notes: | + | While you are beginning to learn about [[183_notes: |
- | ==== Lecture Video ===== | ||
- | Forthcoming... | ||
- | ==== Defining Static Equilibrium ==== | ||
- | We define an object to be in static equilibrium if it is not moving. That seems obvious, but there' | ||
- | - The object cannot be translating (moving up/down, left/right, etc.). | + | ===== Defining Static Equilibrium ===== |
- | - The object cannot be rotating (clockwise or counter-clockwise). | + | |
- | The first of these conditions [[183_notes: | + | **We define a system to be in static equilibrium if it is not moving**. That seems obvious, but there are two specific conditions on the motion that has to be satisfied: |
+ | |||
+ | - The system cannot be translating (moving up/down, left/right, etc.). | ||
+ | - The system cannot be rotating (clockwise or counter-clockwise). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first of these conditions [[183_notes: | ||
→Fnet=→F1+→F2+→F3+⋯=0 | →Fnet=→F1+→F2+→F3+⋯=0 | ||
Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
∑Fx=0∑Fy=0 | ∑Fx=0∑Fy=0 | ||
- | If the sum of all the forces is zero then static equilibrium is possible but **not** guaranteed. | + | //If the sum of all the forces is zero then static equilibrium is possible but **not** guaranteed.// |
- | [{{ 183_notes:statics_bar.png?250|A bar with two identically sized forces acting on it.}}] | + | [{{ 183_notes:week12_staticpivotforces.png?350|A bar with two identically sized forces acting on it.}}] |
- | === Why torque matters | + | ==== Why Torque Matters ==== |
- | Consider the bar to the right. Two equal sized forces are acting on the bar in opposite directions. In this case, the sum of the forces in each coordinate direction (namely, the vertical direction) is zero. Hence, this situation satisfies the first condition for static equilibrium. However, you can probably easily see that with these forces applied, the bar will rotate (counter-clockwise). So, in this case, we violate condition 2 above and the bar is not in static equilibrium (because it is going to rotate). | + | Consider |
- | The forces apply [[183_notes: | + | The forces apply [[183_notes: |
So, to have a static equilibrium situation it must be that we have both: | So, to have a static equilibrium situation it must be that we have both: | ||
Line 39: | Line 41: | ||
The second of these conditions in conceptually different than we have dealt with before because you might have to consider multiple rotation locations (not just the obvious ones). To satisfy the second condition, we must have: | The second of these conditions in conceptually different than we have dealt with before because you might have to consider multiple rotation locations (not just the obvious ones). To satisfy the second condition, we must have: | ||
- | →τnet,A=→τ1,A+→τ2,A+→τ3,A+⋯= | + | $$\vec{\tau}_{net, |
+ | |||
+ | for any location A about which you calculate the torque. This is the challenging part of the static equilibrium concept: about what point should the torque be considered? There is no general rule, but if you find a point where the net torque is non-zero the system is not in static equilibrium. | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, we often observe that a system is not translating or rotating and thus we can apply the static equilibrium conditions to understand what forces are being applied and at what locations (rather than the inverse problem of figuring out if a particular system is in static equilibrium). | ||
+ | You can use an [[183_notes: | ||
+ | ===== Examples ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | * [[: | ||