Understanding Newton's Laws of Motion: Solving a Tricky Equation with Blocks

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the equation x2 + l = x1 + (l/16) in the context of Newton's Laws of Motion, specifically when one-fourth of block 1 is on block 2. Participants are trying to derive the equation and clarify the reasoning behind the lengths on both sides. It is noted that x1 and x2 represent the distances moved by blocks 1 and 2, respectively. A key point is that block 1 must overtake block 2 by a distance of (15/16)l. The conversation highlights the complexities involved in applying Newton's principles to this scenario.
azizlwl
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
10
At the instant that one-fourth of block 1 remains on block 2, x2+l=x1+(l/16).

For days trying to figure out how this equation derived from.
Thank You.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3926/kotak.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
azizlwl said:
At the instant that one-fourth of block 1 remains on block 2, x2+l = x1+(l/16).

hi azizlwl! :smile:

(i don't understand why they've put lengths on both sides of the equation, but …)

x1 and x2 are the distances blocks 1 and 2 have moved

since block 1 has to overtake block 2 by (15/16)l, that means x1 - x2 = (15/16)l :wink:
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

B What is the Absolute Value of the Normal force on a block on this wedge?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Why were Newton's laws of motion discovered so late?
2
Replies
66
Views
9K
A Equations of Motion for Torsional Inverted Pendulum on a moving cart
Replies
2
Views
1K
Newton's law problem: Pushing 2 stacked blocks on a horizontal table
Replies
13
Views
3K
Visualizing the SHM of 2 blocks attached by a spring
Replies
2
Views
2K
Connecting Newton's 3rd law of motion to circular motion
Replies
21
Views
11K
Engineering Solving Moment Equations with Newton's 2nd Law: Help Needed!
Replies
4
Views
2K
Newton's Third Law Problem: Two masses, a rope and a pulley
Replies
21
Views
10K
Understanding Momentum & Force: Self-Studying Physics Tips
Replies
7
Views
2K
Help a HS teacher understand uniform motion?
2
Replies
64
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top