84:
74:
53:
22:
202:
The principal states sum of moments has to add up, does it imply there has to be a force coupled with a moment? In other words there can simply exist a moment without a force is it not? Typically we tend to associate a force with a twisting moment because things have to add up but is there any such
215:
A colleague of mine said that a chief examiner (in the UK) has declared the official definition of a couple to include the fact that the perpendicular distance of each force to the pivot must be the same. Is this true? If it is, can it be clarified on this page (there is mention to a couple
250:"A couple is a set of bound vectors (see Sec. 4.1) whose resultant (see Sec. 4.1) is equal to zero. A couple consisting of only two vectors is called a simple couple. Hence, the vectors forming a simple couple necessarily have equal magnitudes and opposite directions."
179:
They are not strictly equivalent - torque is the moment resulting from the application of a couple. A torque can result from a single force or a combination of different forces. A couple can only result from two equal and opposite forces.
216:
producing no change the the momentum of the centre of mass, but does that necessarily mean that the perpendicular distance between the two forces and the pivot must be the same? Plain
English would help here I think)
380:
203:
statement ever made? (i.e a twist/moment has to have an associated force? I have seen this break in case of cantilevers and seen a nice article on
Varignon's theorem here:
140:
375:
130:
83:
370:
106:
348:
278:
277:
Something got messed up in the formula at 'Simple Couple' 'Definition' where 'd' was supposed to be defined - fix please thanks
97:
58:
170:
33:
352:
235:
39:
21:
282:
187:
105:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
344:
329:
262:
167:
217:
204:
257:
i.e. the exam may be using "couple" to mean "simple couple". Don't know about other textbooks. --
182:
325:
258:
297:
89:
364:
239:
316:(which is perhaps equivalent to a single couple?), but makes not mention either
73:
52:
79:
356:
333:
293:
286:
266:
191:
173:
102:
205:
http://web.mit.edu/4.441/1_lectures/1_lecture10/1_lecture10.html
245:
The textbook by Kane and
Levinson is not consistent with that:
15:
207:
but never the reverse) (-Alok 08:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC))
343:
A rename is necessary. The name of the article should be
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
381:Start-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
324:. Could someone add a description of those? ♦
8:
19:
47:
49:
273:Something got messed up in the formula
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
339:Not just in mechanics, in physics
82:
72:
51:
20:
376:Mid-importance physics articles
135:This article has been rated as
357:18:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
334:22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
198:is force mandatory for moment
109:and see a list of open tasks.
371:Start-Class physics articles
287:23:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
192:00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Physics
211:Exam definition of 'couple'
397:
141:project's importance scale
303:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
174:21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
312:The article discusses a
267:02:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
240:11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
28:This article is rated
210:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
98:WikiProject Physics
34:content assessment
190:
158:couple = torque ?
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
388:
345:Couple (physics)
229:
226:
223:
220:
186:
185:
123:
122:
121:physics articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
396:
395:
391:
390:
389:
387:
386:
385:
361:
360:
341:
326:J. Johnson (JJ)
310:
275:
227:
224:
221:
218:
213:
200:
181:
168:Saippuakauppias
164:couple = torque
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
394:
392:
384:
383:
378:
373:
363:
362:
349:178.138.96.253
340:
337:
309:
308:Double couple?
306:
305:
304:
301:
274:
271:
270:
269:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
212:
209:
199:
196:
195:
194:
166:. Isn't it? --
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Mid-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Physics portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
393:
382:
379:
377:
374:
372:
369:
368:
366:
359:
358:
354:
350:
346:
338:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:double-couple
319:
315:
314:simple couple
307:
302:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
284:
280:
279:12.33.223.210
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
249:
248:
247:
246:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
232:
208:
206:
197:
193:
189:
184:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
169:
165:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
342:
321:
317:
313:
311:
276:
230:
214:
201:
163:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
183:Sarregouset
30:Start-class
365:Categories
231:and shiz
162:I think
318:single-
139:on the
112:Physics
103:Physics
59:Physics
292:Done.
188:(talk)
36:scale.
259:Steve
353:talk
330:talk
300:) 00
298:talk
294:Dger
283:talk
263:talk
236:talk
320:or
131:Mid
367::
355:)
332:)
285:)
265:)
238:)
225:ic
222:ys
219:Ph
351:(
347:.
328:(
296:(
281:(
261:(
234:(
228:s
180:–
171:⇄
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
