Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

RontgensWallaby
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 5:00 pm
Division: C
State: GA
Location: Small Magellanic Cloud (my messages may be a couple of years late)

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby RontgensWallaby » April 22nd, 2015, 2:11 pm

Ok, that's what I got.
(originally I solved incorrectly for the minimum mass and used the total weight of the block as the force it exerted, for some reason)
Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it. - Niels Bohr

RontgensWallaby
Member
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: April 14th, 2015, 5:00 pm
Division: C
State: GA
Location: Small Magellanic Cloud (my messages may be a couple of years late)

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby RontgensWallaby » April 22nd, 2015, 2:13 pm

The only other thing was that my minimum mass was 4 grams heavier than yours but that shouldn't be an issue. Probably a result of different intermediate rounding.
Every great and deep difficulty bears in itself its own solution. It forces us to change our thinking in order to find it. - Niels Bohr

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 7:42 am
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F » April 22nd, 2015, 3:31 pm

http://img.sparknotes.com/content/testp ... pulley.gif
A problem I just came up with. Solved it and just want to make sure I'm right since I doubt my coach will know how to solve it (it's not that complicated).
In the diagram from the link, angle θ is 37 degrees and mass m is 15 kg. The coefficient of friction between mass m and the inclined plane is 0.4. Assume the pulley is frictionless. What are the maximum and minimum masses for mass M if the system is in equilibrium?
Just want to make sure you know you don't have to know this. Div B prohibited topics include coefficient of friction.

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4120
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby Unome » May 20th, 2015, 2:35 pm

Okay, so as far as I can tell, if the following system is in static equilibrium, the downward force on the fulcrum would be 16.82; I just wanted to check here and see if that makes sense:
Lever 2nd class.png
Lever 2nd class.png (3.61 KiB) Viewed 3545 times
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 7:42 am
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F » May 20th, 2015, 2:45 pm

Okay, so as far as I can tell, if the following system is in static equilibrium, the downward force on the fulcrum would be 16.82; I just wanted to check here and see if that makes sense:
Lever 2nd class.png
Strange... I got an upward force of 16.82 N (with sig figs that's 20 N).

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4120
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby Unome » May 20th, 2015, 3:23 pm

Okay, so as far as I can tell, if the following system is in static equilibrium, the downward force on the fulcrum would be 16.82; I just wanted to check here and see if that makes sense:
Lever 2nd class.png
Strange... I got an upward force of 16.82 N (with sig figs that's 20 N).
Wouldn't it be downwards since the outside effort force going upwards is less than the load force going down?
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 7:42 am
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F » May 20th, 2015, 3:37 pm

Okay, so as far as I can tell, if the following system is in static equilibrium, the downward force on the fulcrum would be 16.82; I just wanted to check here and see if that makes sense:
Lever 2nd class.png
Strange... I got an upward force of 16.82 N (with sig figs that's 20 N).
Wouldn't it be downwards since the outside effort force going upwards is less than the load force going down?
Since , then . Furthermore, if , then static equilibrium is achieved. (Think downwards as negative and upwards as positive)

User avatar
Unome
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4120
Joined: January 26th, 2014, 12:48 pm
Division: Grad
State: GA
Location: somewhere in the sciolyverse

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby Unome » May 20th, 2015, 3:44 pm

Strange... I got an upward force of 16.82 N (with sig figs that's 20 N).
Wouldn't it be downwards since the outside effort force going upwards is less than the load force going down?
Since , then . Furthermore, if , then static equilibrium is achieved. (Think downwards as negative and upwards as positive)
The force exerted by the lever is up, but the force on the lever would be down, right?
Userpage
Chattahoochee High School Class of 2018
Georgia Tech Class of 2022

Opinions expressed on this site are not official; the only place for official rules changes and FAQs is soinc.org.

UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F
Exalted Member
Exalted Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 7:42 am
Division: C
State: PA

Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C

Postby UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F » May 20th, 2015, 5:00 pm

The force exerted by the lever is up, but the force on the lever would be down, right?
Yes, at least that's how I see it. Oh, okay, I get it. :shock:


Return to “2015 Lab Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests