Calculating Distance with Friction on an Icy Surface

  • Thread starter Thread starter JAZZ541
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disc Surface
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the friction coefficient and distance traveled by a disc moving on an icy surface. The correct friction coefficient is determined to be 0.17, derived from the equation μ = Vo²/2gx. For a second disc with double the mass, the distance traveled remains the same due to the cancellation of mass in the friction force calculation. The conversation highlights the importance of not substituting values too early in problem-solving to avoid unnecessary complications. Overall, the relationship between mass and distance traveled is clarified, emphasizing that increased mass does not lead to reduced distance on an icy surface.
JAZZ541
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi, would like to get a feedback on my answer to this question, did I do it right?
In part 2 of the question is there another way to calculate distance with friction?

the question is:
a disc is moving on icy surface has an initial speed of 12m/s 42m until it stops
1. what is the friction coefficient?
2. if you take a disc made of the same material as the first and moves at the same initial speed but has double the mass how far would that disc go?

ty!

Homework Equations


[/B]

The Attempt at a Solution



friction.png
[/B]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct. However you substituted values too early which made things a bit harder than necessary. If you hadn't done that then for Q1 you would arrive at the equation...

μ = Vo2/2gx

then substitute values to give μ = 0.17

For Q2 you can simply rearrange the equation to give...

x = Vo2/2gμ

from which you can see that x is independent of the mass.
 
PS: The more mass the disc has the more inertia it has so you might expect it to go further BUT the friction force is proportional to the normal force which depends on mass. So mass ends up cancelling.

PPS: It's not unknown for examiners to give you lots of unnecessary information and if you substitute values early you can end up wasting a lot of time (and accuracy) if it cancels out of the equation.
 
tyvm!
CWatters said:
PS: The more mass the disc has the more inertia it has so you might expect it to go further
yes, I wondered about that but the other way around, thought it will travel less, it seemed to make sense intuitively - that heavier objects will travel less distance, obviously it doesn't - why? is that due to inertia as you mentioned?
CWatters said:
It's not unknown for examiners to give you lots of unnecessary information and if you substitute values early you can end up wasting a lot of time (and accuracy) if it cancels out of the equation.
ty!, noted!
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top