Calculating Coefficient of Kinetic Friction on an Inclined Ramp

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the coefficient of kinetic friction for a suitcase on an inclined ramp, given its mass, the angle of inclination, and its acceleration down the ramp.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between net force, gravitational components, and friction. There are attempts to derive the coefficient of kinetic friction using the equation involving net force and gravitational forces. Some participants question the validity of the acceleration value and the book's answer.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing dialogue about the calculations and potential errors. Some participants have shared their results, which differ from the book's answer, indicating a lack of consensus on the correct coefficient of kinetic friction. Guidance has been offered to re-check calculations, and some participants have acknowledged computational errors.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of the problem as presented, including the values for mass, angle, and acceleration. There is a mention of a potential error in the textbook answer, which is being debated.

superdave
Messages
149
Reaction score
3
Here it is.
A 10 kg suitcase is placed on a flat ramp inclined at 37 deg. When released from rest, the suitcase accelerates down the ramp at .15 m/s^2. What is the coefficient of the kinetic friction between the suitcase and the ramp?

Now, from this I got Fnet=m*a=1.5 N in the x direction.

Fnet=Fx-kinetic friction=mg(sin theta)-mg(cos theta)(mu k)
solving for mu k:
mu k=mg(sin theta)-Fnet)/mg(cos theta)

Doing all the math gets me something like .46, but the back of the book disagrees. What am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The question is wrong. The acceleration is greater than g.
 
It's 0.15 m/s^2. I left out the 0, so it might've looked like 15. Sorry.
 
I can't see that you've done anything wrong.
 
The answer I get is .468, but the book gives .73. Unless the book is wrong, which I guess is conceivable.
 
I set it up the same way and got u=0.734. Maybe just re-check your math after the last equation.
 
Show your calculations.
 
Thanks, I got it. I had forgotten to add a parenthesis when putting it into my calculator. Stupid me. I tried to post this yesterday, but the forum seemed to go down.
 
Yeah it did go down. Most errors I make are computational rather than systematic.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
851
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
3K