![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Kinetic diagram page were merged into Free body diagram on 4 September 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I found this page rather muddled. The basic points about the free body diagram are missing:
Rather than getting bogged down with weight and inclined planes, it would be more useful to give clear instructions for static analysis (resolving forces and taking moments). That could lead to non-rotational dynamics, showing statics is a special case where acceleration is zero), and possibly also going on to rotational dynamics, introducing moment of inertia.
-- Jack Hale 10:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be merged with section 1.2 of Classical mechanics. Jonathan48 18:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe that this article should be editted to include
Contact forces
Non-Contact forces
-- Erik the guy 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This approach is, in my opinion, a dangerous road to tread pedagogically. It makes the student think that there exists an exhaustive list of every type of vector they'll ever need, and if they memorize that list, everything will be ok. But a physics student is constantly exposed to additional forces over their tenure. Even the sticky issue that there's no such thing as a "contact force" is further complicated by the question of what a fictional force is - it doesn't seem to fit into either of those categories, but should certainly be listed on a FBD when appropriate. Rather, the student should be encouraged to think about the specific situation at hand and attempt to list all the relevant effects on the object. I've always felt it was a mistake to categorize forces at this level, the whole beauty of FBDs is that they make no distinction between forces, every force is just a vector.
What I'd like to do is change the vector section to a very general discussion of how to construct a FBD, and then move the existing material into a separate "Example" section. I'll try to do that and see how people feel.
-- Hyandat 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yah i sort of agree with you. We cannott offer a definitive list of all possible forces. We should attempt to compose a list of some of the most common forces however, and those given above are some of the standard ones. Fictional forces can even be lister seperatly from the other two (since they are not technically forces) I just think the wiki needs a bit more info than weight and normal force.-- Erik the guy 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Needs generalising to the use in eg beams (sometimes called a'cut-body diagram'??), to show internal forces, such as internal moment and shear. Linuxlad 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this additional diagram here to discuss the issues I believe it has:
It needs to be modified, since it shows the frictional force going through its true line of action but the normal reaction going through the block's centroid, which is not, which is somewhat misleading. Thanks, BigBlueFish ( talk) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the case where only three forces act on a body, a free body diagram must show all the forces acting through a common point. Sophia 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The Kinetic diagram seems like a special case of the free body diagram in which only the net force is shown. It could be made into a section in the free body diagram article. The kinetic diagram page is an orphan. -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 00:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Meme2611 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Albertoru26.
— Assignment last updated by Kmijares ( talk) 06:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Polygon of Forces is not the correct method to reference. The appropriate method is Vector addition (see link below). This is nothing more than the square of the sum of the component of each for in each axis of analysis. sqrt(Fx^2 + Fy^2 + Fz^2). This is the easiest and most commonly used method.
Euclidean vector - Wikipedia Joseph L. Moore NearlyMad 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Kinetic diagram page were merged into Free body diagram on 4 September 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I found this page rather muddled. The basic points about the free body diagram are missing:
Rather than getting bogged down with weight and inclined planes, it would be more useful to give clear instructions for static analysis (resolving forces and taking moments). That could lead to non-rotational dynamics, showing statics is a special case where acceleration is zero), and possibly also going on to rotational dynamics, introducing moment of inertia.
-- Jack Hale 10:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this article should be merged with section 1.2 of Classical mechanics. Jonathan48 18:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I believe that this article should be editted to include
Contact forces
Non-Contact forces
-- Erik the guy 07:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This approach is, in my opinion, a dangerous road to tread pedagogically. It makes the student think that there exists an exhaustive list of every type of vector they'll ever need, and if they memorize that list, everything will be ok. But a physics student is constantly exposed to additional forces over their tenure. Even the sticky issue that there's no such thing as a "contact force" is further complicated by the question of what a fictional force is - it doesn't seem to fit into either of those categories, but should certainly be listed on a FBD when appropriate. Rather, the student should be encouraged to think about the specific situation at hand and attempt to list all the relevant effects on the object. I've always felt it was a mistake to categorize forces at this level, the whole beauty of FBDs is that they make no distinction between forces, every force is just a vector.
What I'd like to do is change the vector section to a very general discussion of how to construct a FBD, and then move the existing material into a separate "Example" section. I'll try to do that and see how people feel.
-- Hyandat 23:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yah i sort of agree with you. We cannott offer a definitive list of all possible forces. We should attempt to compose a list of some of the most common forces however, and those given above are some of the standard ones. Fictional forces can even be lister seperatly from the other two (since they are not technically forces) I just think the wiki needs a bit more info than weight and normal force.-- Erik the guy 00:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Needs generalising to the use in eg beams (sometimes called a'cut-body diagram'??), to show internal forces, such as internal moment and shear. Linuxlad 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved this additional diagram here to discuss the issues I believe it has:
It needs to be modified, since it shows the frictional force going through its true line of action but the normal reaction going through the block's centroid, which is not, which is somewhat misleading. Thanks, BigBlueFish ( talk) 16:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the case where only three forces act on a body, a free body diagram must show all the forces acting through a common point. Sophia 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The Kinetic diagram seems like a special case of the free body diagram in which only the net force is shown. It could be made into a section in the free body diagram article. The kinetic diagram page is an orphan. -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 00:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Meme2611 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Albertoru26.
— Assignment last updated by Kmijares ( talk) 06:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Polygon of Forces is not the correct method to reference. The appropriate method is Vector addition (see link below). This is nothing more than the square of the sum of the component of each for in each axis of analysis. sqrt(Fx^2 + Fy^2 + Fz^2). This is the easiest and most commonly used method.
Euclidean vector - Wikipedia Joseph L. Moore NearlyMad 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)