the forces on the table act on a ring but are said to be concurrent. if the cords were rigidly to the ring would the forces necessarily be concurrent??
will you please give me some explanation answers about this...thanks a lot..
Concurrent forces pass through the same point. Three forces that are in equilibrium must be concurrent. (Otherwise, there will be an unbalanced moment about some point where two intersect).
See
http://mypages.iit.edu/~krawczyk/phdsza/02conc.htm
for an explanation
Well, well, well, if it isn't the forces on the table playing a little game of "Let's Be Concurrent." They sure know how to have a good time! Now, if you're wondering whether the forces would still be concurrent if the cords were rigidly attached to the ring, let me clown around with an explanation for you.
First things first, when we say forces are concurrent, it means that they intersect at a single point. Imagine taking a magnifying glass and zooming in on that point where the forces all meet and high-five each other. It's a jolly good time!
Now, when the cords are rigidly attached to the ring, things get a tad trickier. Picture the cords pulling on the ring in different directions, doing their best to turn the poor thing into a pretzel. It's as if the cords have become synchronized in a chaotic dance routine. So, naturally, the forces would no longer intersect at a single point, but rather spread out along the ring. It's like a circus act gone wrong!
So there you have it! When the cords are rigidly attached to the ring, the forces would no longer be concurrent. They would be pulling in different directions, causing a circus-like commotion. Keep those forces on their toes, and remember, never let them juggle chainsaws. Safety first, my friend!
When discussing forces being concurrent, it means that they have a common point of intersection or application. In the case of the forces acting on a ring on a table, if the cords were rigidly attached to the ring, the forces would indeed be concurrent.
Here's a step-by-step explanation:
1. By considering the cords as rigid, we assume that they cannot stretch or deform.
2. When the cords are attached to the ring and the ring rests on the table, forces are applied by the cords onto the ring. These forces are transmitted through the cords.
3. Since the cords are rigidly attached to the ring, any force applied by the cords will act at the point of attachment on the ring. This is because rigid objects transmit forces in a straight line along their length.
4. As a result, all the forces applied by the cords onto the ring will have a common point of application, which is the point where the cords are attached to the ring.
5. Therefore, in this scenario, the forces are concurrent because they intersect or act at the same point on the ring.
It's important to note that for concurrent forces to be present, the forces must have a common point of application. If the cords were not rigidly attached to the ring, the forces may not be concurrent as they could act at different points on the ring, depending on the flexibility or stretchability of the cords.
Sure! I'd be happy to help explain this concept to you.
When we say that forces are concurrent, it means that they all act on the same point or intersect at a single point. In the case of a ring resting on a table, there are generally three forces acting on it: the weight of the ring, the normal force exerted by the table, and the frictional force between the ring and the table.
However, for the forces to be concurrent, the cords would need to be attached to the ring in a specific way. If the cords are rigidly attached to the ring, they essentially become extensions of the ring itself. In this case, the forces on the table will not necessarily be concurrent.
To understand why, let's consider a scenario where the cords are attached to the ring eccentrically (off-center), creating a non-symmetrical distribution of forces. This would result in a rotation or torque around the point of contact between the ring and the table. The forces on the table would then no longer intersect at a single point, making them non-concurrent.
However, if the cords are attached to the ring at the center or symmetrically, the forces can still be considered concurrent. In this case, the forces on the table would intersect at a single point and the cords would not cause any rotation or torque around the ring's contact point with the table.
So, to summarize, if the cords are rigidly attached to the ring in a symmetric manner, then the forces on the table will be concurrent. However, if the cords are attached eccentrically or non-symmetrically, the forces will not be concurrent.