Car on a Banked Curve (no friction)

AI Thread Summary
In a frictionless scenario on a banked curve, the forces acting on a car include the normal force and gravity. The horizontal component of the normal force provides the necessary centripetal force, while the vertical component balances gravity. A misunderstanding arises when analyzing forces in a coordinate system aligned with the plane, where it appears the normal force is canceled by gravity; however, this is incorrect. The normal force still contributes to the net force, which is essential for maintaining circular motion. The discussion emphasizes the importance of correctly interpreting force diagrams to understand the dynamics of motion on banked curves.
stumped101
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,

If we have a car traveling in a circle on a banked curve without friction, the forces acting on the car would only be the normal force and gravitational force.

Using a x-y coordinate system, the horizontal component of normal (Nsintheta) provides the centripetal force Fc and it's vertical component (Ncostheta) cancels out the force of gravity. Everything works out here.

However, if you were to the draw the forces in a coordinate system that had axes parallel and perpendicular to the plane, you would find the normal force being canceled out by the force of gravity perpendicular to the plane (Fgcostheta) and leaving us with just a net force of the parallel force of gravity down the plane. What's stopping the car from sliding down the curve now and what's providing the centripetal force on this diagram?

Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
stumped101 said:
you would find the normal force being canceled out by the force of gravity perpendicular to the plane (Fgcostheta)

This is where you were wrong.
This component of gravity force is canceled, but the normal force isn't, which leaves a component perpendicular to the plane. It, along with the parallel one, forms the net force, which is the centripetal force.
 
No matter what coordinate system you select you'e still going to get the normal force having a horizontal component of N sin theta (which must be equal to centripetal force mv^2/r) and a vertical component of N cos theta (which must be equal to the weight mg).

A handy way to get the banking angle that you need, for a given radius of curvature and speed, is to divide those two equations, which results in tan theta = v^2/rg.
 
The important thing here is to analyse why the vertical component of normal force is higher than gravity.
Place a stationary block on the same banked curve. It will slide down. In that case the vertical component of normal force would get defeated by gravity. Drawing force diagrams isn't the only part of physics in this situation. You just found that it had misled you.
 
stumped101 said:
However, if you were to the draw the forces in a coordinate system that had axes parallel and perpendicular to the plane, you would find the normal force being canceled out by the force of gravity perpendicular to the plane (Fgcostheta) and leaving us with just a net force of the parallel force of gravity down the plane.
No, the normal force isn't 'canceled out'. You are tacitly assuming that the acceleration perpendicular to the plane is zero, but it's not. The acceleration is horizontal, which has components parallel and perpendicular to the plane.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top