Coefficient of friction question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the coefficient of friction for an iron disk sliding down a ramp, comparing a non-magnetized disk with a magnetized one. Participants explore the implications of magnetic braking on energy loss and friction, questioning how magnetization affects the coefficient of friction despite the materials being the same.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the magnetized disk slides down slower due to magnetic braking, leading to different energy loss calculations based on velocity.
  • Another participant argues that energy lost should remain proportional to the vertical height slid down, regardless of the sliding speed.
  • Some participants suggest that the normal force increases when considering magnetic forces, which could affect the coefficient of friction calculation.
  • There is a claim that the coefficient of friction should not change since the materials are the same, raising questions about the effects of magnetization.
  • Participants express confusion over the differing energy loss values for the magnetized and non-magnetized disks, questioning whether they should be equal.
  • One participant requests clarification on the calculations and values used in the energy loss equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the energy lost should be the same for both disks, with some asserting it should be equal while others maintain that differences arise due to varying velocities and forces involved.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the effects of magnetization on the coefficient of friction and the calculations of energy lost, as well as the role of normal force in this context.

guay
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Say if an iron disk slides down a non ferromagnetic conductor ramp and we get a certain time. And then we have an iron disk with the same mass but MAGNETIZED slide down the same ramp and get a longer time (because of of magnetic braking). The calculated acceleration of the MAGNETIZED disk will be smaller.

We then take these velocities and plug them into an energy equation (ET1 = ET2 or something like that) to find the energy lost. We use this to find 2 different energy lost amounts, and then use Wff = Ff(d)(cos180) to find the force of friction. We will get a different force of friction for each disk because they each had a different energy lost amount.

Now here is the question: if I know the normal force and stick the force of friction into the coefficient equation: Ffk = μkFn, I will get different coefficients for each disk. Why is that? I thought the coefficient depended on the material and the surface? In this case both are the same. Unless being magnetized changes the coefficient?

All help is appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I will just say that when you first learned about friction it was in the context of mechanics, not E&M. If I introduce an entire field of new phenomena (E&M) then I can't expect all my old intuitions to hold. Trust nature, there is no hope in trying to prove it wrong.

This probably isn't a very satisfying answer, but it's all I've got.
 
Sliding down slower shouldn't change the value of energy lost. The power value (energy over time in simple terms) would be different but in the end both disc would have lost the same amount of energy proportional to the vertical height they slid down.
 
wukunlin said:
Sliding down slower shouldn't change the value of energy lost. The power value (energy over time in simple terms) would be different but in the end both disc would have lost the same amount of energy proportional to the vertical height they slid down.

But the value of energy lost does indeed change, since the energy lost equation requires kinetic energy which require velocity, and the velocities for each scenario is different.

I was told by others that Normal force gets bigger. The normal force is counteracting not only gravity now, but also the magnetic force so therefore Fn is greater. The coefficient does not change.

The equation is still going to be
Ffk = μkFn

The difference however is that now
Fn = B + Fgy


Is this right? And if so, how would I find Fn (in order to find B through math)
 
guay said:
But the value of energy lost does indeed change, since the energy lost equation requires kinetic energy which require velocity, and the velocities for each scenario is different.

nope, the magnetized disc will slide down slower with less velocity but it takes longer so overall the energy lost is the same as the other disc.
 
wukunlin said:
nope, the magnetized disc will slide down slower with less velocity but it takes longer so overall the energy lost is the same as the other disc.

So what would the values be in the equation for both scenarios? Eg1 - Ek2 = E lost

m= 0.01kg
t (NON MAGNET) = 0.80s
t (MAGNET) = 5.2s
v (NON MAGNET) = 2.5m/s
v (MAGNET) = 0.19m/s

thanks
 
the values should equate to the gravitational energy lost when the disc slid down the ramp = mgh.
 
wukunlin said:
the values should equate to the gravitational energy lost when the disc slid down the ramp = mgh.

It does, but only for the magnetized disk. The non magnetized disk has a different (smaller) energy lost. Why is that? should they be the same?
 
Weird, they should be the same. How significant is the difference?
 
  • #10
wukunlin said:
Weird, they should be the same. How significant is the difference?

the non magnetic is 0.018N, the magnetic is 0.048N which is the same as change in gravitational potential energy
 
  • #11
what does the N stand for?
 
  • #12
oh crap i messed up, ignore the N's, they are all in Joules!
 
  • #13
hmm, hard to tell what went wrong, may I see your working?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 59 ·
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K