Understanding Friction Force: Net Force of X-Component Explained

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the net force acting on a moving puck, specifically why the net force of the x-component is equal to the negative kinetic friction force (-f(k)). It clarifies that once the puck is in motion, it continues moving due to inertia, and the only force acting against its motion is the kinetic friction. The net force being -f(k) indicates that the puck is indeed accelerating, as it is the sole force acting on it. The conversation emphasizes that if there were another force counteracting -f(k), the net force would be zero, not -f(k). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping the principles of motion and friction.
taegello
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me why

net Force of x-component = -f(k) in a moving puck? I don't get how the net Force of x-component be just the kinetic friction force. What about the force that the puck is using to be actually moving? shouldn't that force be included in the net Force of x-component?

When an object is still on an incline,
net Force of x-component = (mg)(sin theta) - f(s) = 0

on when an object is moving, shouldn't it be something minus f(k)?

Any help would be greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The puck does not "use" any force just to be moving. Once it starts moving it will continue moving on its own (as long as any friction acting on it is compensated for by another force, of course).
 
but if net Fx = - f(k) the puck shouldn't be moving or at least moving with constant accelleration? isn't this saying that ma= -f(k)? if the opposing forces are the same, how can the object be moving? any force of ma will be canceled out by -f(k)

I am so lost...
 
Last edited:
taegello said:
but if net Fx = - f(k) the puck shouldn't be moving or at least moving with constant accelleration? isn't this saying that ma= -f(k)?
If the net force Fx = -f(k), then the puck is accelerating.
if the opposing forces are the same, how can the object be moving? any force of ma will be canceled out by -f(k)
(1) There's no opposing force. -f(k) is the only (or the net) force acting.
(2) "ma" is not a force, it's mass*acceleration. Newton's 2nd law tells us that the net force on an object will equal ma: ∑F = ma.
(3) If another force acted to cancel out the -f(k) force, then the net force would be zero, not -f(k).
 
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...
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...
Back
Top