WHO HERE

>>8935869
keep bumping anon i'm sure you'll find a brainlet who agrees with you.

>>8935869
well, if you've only done systems where it's really easy to keep track of every force in your head, there are two possibilities:

a) you've only studied incredibly basic systems of forces, and therefore your opinion is total shit, you are unqualified, and you suck

or,

b) you have genius level spatial intelligence and memory and can keep track of complicated changing systems in your head

I give it a 99.999999% chance that you're just doing FBDs of balls rolling down hills and shit like that and that you fall into category (a)

>>8935869
7/10

>>8935892
yes. it is balls rolling down hills and pulley systems. it is easy. i doubt they become even simpler if the systems become more complicated. i cant expect ANYONE to read a complicated freebodydiagram map with over 20 arrows pointing places. So yes, ultimately they are still useless.

>>8935869
>t. freshman year physics/engineering major

>>8935897
> to read a complicated freebodydiagram map with over 20 arrows pointing places.
it's not exactly hard. it's systematic how you use them
Trusses can easily have 100s of arrows.

>>8935925
you know what yes i am, what are you implying

File: 1488571892139.jpg (8KB, 258x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 258x200px

>>8935929
you haven't seen a legit design package/proposal yet.

FBD's are the first proof of efficacy you need. you think you just jump right into a finite element analysis? lmao.

>>8935930
yes, if the object isnt moving vertically then i dont have to give a fuck about considering the up and down arrows, that seems like clutter to me. just add up all the horizontal movement. done.

>>8935934
>that seems like clutter to me
have fun getting sued. lol what am i saying, you won't be designing anything.

>>8935934
>literally only works in 2D with forces which act purely on one axis
>thinks their opinion on a certain way to visualize these systems is at relevant to literally anything

choose 1

>>8935953
but anon, it is relevant for most things in life, ur just getting mad because someone thinks physics 101 is easy

>>8935869
The new microsoft surface book's attachment mechanism could not have been designed without free body diagrams.

Microsoft made a fucking amazing connector capable of aligning and holding things together with micrometer tolerances, that won't lose connection until the tablet itself breaks, using a minimum number of moving parts per connector.

What this means is they can connect and detach a keyboard with a GPU quickly.

Now the media got all excited about the shape memory alloy used to unlatch things, but what really holds things in place are two wedges.
One is fixed on the frame, the other is free and has a roller on it that has spring force down. When you push a flat tab in, it sticks. From just looking at the device this does not make any sense, but if you do a freebody diagram it does.

Overall mechanism looks like this:
#|_| i |o/ /_|#

Pound signs represent fixed parts, I is the tab, and o is the roller. The roller contacts the tab and the other wedge.

>>8935988
sex

>>8935869
>Freebody diagrams are confusing
>Too smart to ever need freebody diagrams

Pick one

>>8935869
i have a good idea
HAND DRAWN FBDs are a waste of time

>>8936000
im a savant what can i say

They're so other people easily understand your work. Professor wants to only need to take a quick glance.

>>8936010
You're a lazy high schooler, most likely

All right OP. Prove your point by giving out the answers in terms of W and degrees instead of calling names.

Coeffient of friction is the ratio of maximum frictional force to the reaction force as it is at the point of moving.

File: 20170526_222408.jpg (3MB, 4128x2322px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4128x2322px

>>8936744
I didn't upload the image and misspell "coefficient". My bad.

>>8935892
this desu. no one is fucking with mohr coloumb models here