GR9277 #100
|
|
|
Alternate Solutions |
There are no Alternate Solutions for this problem. Be the first to post one! |
|
Comments |
Albert 2009-11-05 04:38:54 | Alternate solution:
No center of mass needed, no torque, no directions, nothing! I solve it by simply taking the ratio of the masses with the lengths of the rod on either side of the fulcrum. And here's how:
On one side you have and other side has . The rod weighs , so I divide in half and give both weights each. And now they weigh and .
Once reached so far, just put 'em up in ratio and get it,
comes out , which is of course further from the center.
The god-damned technique works every freakin' time!
Just make sure you set the ratio to "more mass: lesser length".
apr2010 2010-04-08 15:26:08 |
That is interesting that you do not know which has less length...Keeping the indexes right should work.
|
SurpriseAttachyon 2015-09-10 15:00:03 |
That\'s so strange that this works. The mass on the bar on each side and the mass from the weight on each side should be treated differently because as you move the bar, the bar-mass portion changes but the weight-mass doesn\'t.\r\n\r\nYet when you plug in different answers, it\'s still correct. That\'s odd.
|
nikog 2015-10-20 19:04:27 |
it\'s not that odd. The torque produced from a force F at the a point p at a distance x (i.e at the point x+p) is τ=Fx. Instead if you consider a problem where you have two forces F1= and F2= symmetrical to the point p and you measure the torgue at x+p then\r\nτ=( l+x) - (l-x) = Fx where l the distance from the point p
|
| | matonski 2009-03-24 01:57:48 | I just put the origin at the center and found the center of mass. COM =
kroner 2009-09-29 14:09:00 |
I think it's safe to say that matonski wins.
|
adjwilley 2009-11-04 10:40:16 |
Beautiful.
|
torturedbabycow 2010-04-09 10:14:17 |
Seconding the "beautiful." In fact, I think I might need a cigarette after reading it. ^__^
|
alemsalem 2010-09-26 09:32:41 |
fuck yeah :) im also gonna smoke now
|
neon37 2010-11-12 09:11:16 |
Damn!......Elegant!...
|
elenaPh 2013-04-15 11:40:16 |
amazing solution ! thanks!
|
aaa2 2014-09-25 12:06:00 |
wow just wow
|
justacomment 2014-10-07 23:19:21 |
Salute.
|
blabla0001 2017-03-25 09:26:30 |
this solution is too good for me. it is also so good that it becomes dangerous. hope i ll never need it again
|
| | vsravani 2008-11-01 10:51:15 | why is minus sign taken in the equation for 40kg mass
20gd+20gq-40gx=0?
elzoido238 2008-11-06 11:37:44 |
There is a negative sign for the torque due to the 40 kg mass because its contribution to the torque is in the opposite direction of the torques arising from the 20 kg mass and the mass of the rod.
|
| | Andresito 2006-03-30 13:01:46 | @astro_allison, thank you for the alternative. | | astro_allison 2005-11-26 23:32:09 | the term "10" doesn't make sense to me...
I solved it this way:
if is the distance from the center of mass to the fulcrum,
solving, you get
for some reason when I solved it with the term in your equation, I got
yosun 2005-11-27 02:28:28 |
astro_allison: thanks for the typo-alert; it has been fixed. ( should be ... note that the first g is a q.) also, thanks for the alternate solution.
|
gotfork 2008-10-17 11:31:32 |
I'm a bit confused, where does the 20d come from?
|
gotfork 2008-10-17 12:23:09 |
Whoops, just realized the rod has a mass.
|
his dudeness 2010-09-05 16:27:20 |
Yeah I made the same mistake as gotfork... it's tough to get used to things like rods and ropes having masses after so many years of physics :-) ... luckily the answer came out close enough to be right anyway(1.667~1.5)
|
| |
|
Post A Comment! |
|
Bare Basic LaTeX Rosetta Stone
|
LaTeX syntax supported through dollar sign wrappers $, ex., $\alpha^2_0$ produces .
|
type this... |
to get... |
$\int_0^\infty$ |
|
$\partial$ |
|
$\Rightarrow$ |
|
$\ddot{x},\dot{x}$ |
|
$\sqrt{z}$ |
|
$\langle my \rangle$ |
|
$\left( abacadabra \right)_{me}$ |
|
$\vec{E}$ |
|
$\frac{a}{b}$ |
|
|
|
|
|
The Sidebar Chatbox...
Scroll to see it, or resize your browser to ignore it... |
|
|