Determine static coefficient of friction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the static coefficient of friction in a scenario involving multiple blocks and an inclined surface. Participants are questioning the values assigned to the coefficients of friction between the blocks and the surface, specifically why one coefficient is used over another.

Discussion Character

  • Assumption checking, Problem interpretation, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the reasoning behind the choice of the coefficient of friction values, questioning the problem statement's clarity and correctness. Some express confusion over the lack of explicit questions and the implications of the coefficients used in calculations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants expressing differing views on the validity of the problem statement. Some have suggested that the problem is fundamentally flawed, while others are seeking clarification on specific points regarding the coefficients of friction. There is no clear consensus on how to proceed.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted ambiguity in the problem statement regarding the coefficients of friction between the blocks and the inclined surface, leading to confusion among participants. Some participants indicate that the problem may be incorrectly worded, which affects their understanding and approach to the question.

werson tan
Messages
183
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


why the µ for block is 0.3(between B and A) ? why can't be µ= 0.4( between B and C) ??

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • IMG_20151025_170319[1].jpg
    IMG_20151025_170319[1].jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 625
  • IMG_20151025_170350[1].jpg
    IMG_20151025_170350[1].jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 428
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem statement is worded incorrectly. It apparently means to consider friction between blocks and the inclined surface, not between blocks. Move on to the next problem, and study the formulas for static and kinetic friction, and when each applies.
 
PhanthomJay said:
The problem statement is worded incorrectly. It apparently means to consider friction between blocks and the inclined surface, not between blocks. Move on to the next problem, and study the formulas for static and kinetic friction, and when each applies.
Can you explain further ??
 
werson tan said:
Can you explain further ??
The first difficulty is that there is no actual question. It describes a set-up, but doesn't say what is to be determined.

Following the calculation, we see that the first step shows that block C is not about to slide down, nor does it require any support from block B. So the conclusion is that there is no force between those two blocks. However, the calculation makes use of a coefficient of static friction between block C and the ramp, whereas the description gave this as the coefficient between blocks B and C.

Next, we perform the same calculation for block B. This time we find that it will slide, if not held in place by block A. Again, it uses the stated coefficients between A and B as though they are between B and the ramp.

The calculation for block A completely ignores the force that would be exerted by block B, so disagrees with the diagram. Again, it uses the stated coefficients between A and B as though they are between A and the ramp.

In short, the question and solution are nonsense from start to finish.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: azizlwl
haruspex said:
The first difficulty is that there is no actual question. It describes a set-up, but doesn't say what is to be determined.

Following the calculation, we see that the first step shows that block C is not about to slide down, nor does it require any support from block B. So the conclusion is that there is no force between those two blocks. However, the calculation makes use of a coefficient of static friction between block C and the ramp, whereas the description gave this as the coefficient between blocks B and C.

Next, we perform the same calculation for block B. This time we find that it will slide, if not held in place by block A. Again, it uses the stated coefficients between A and B as though they are between B and the ramp.

The calculation for block A completely ignores the force that would be exerted by block B, so disagrees with the diagram. Again, it uses the stated coefficients between A and B as though they are between A and the ramp.

In short, the question and solution are nonsense from start to finish.
well , i still don't understand why 0.3 is used for B , why not 0.4 is used for block B ?
 
werson tan said:
well , i still don't understand why 0.3 is used for B , why not 0.4 is used for block B ?
if you take the question statement as correct, there is no reason for using either. There simply is no information on the coefficients of friction between the blocks and the ramp.
If you accept that the question statement is garbled, the only way we can deduce what it should have said is by looking at the solution; what it actually said becomes irrelevant.
 
haruspex said:
if you take the question statement as correct, there is no reason for using either. There simply is no information on the coefficients of friction between the blocks and the ramp.
If you accept that the question statement is garbled, the only way we can deduce what it should have said is by looking at the solution; what it actually said becomes irrelevant.
Ok, I know my mistakes already. Thank you for your help.
 
PhanthomJay said:
The problem statement is worded incorrectly. It apparently means to consider friction between blocks and the inclined surface, not between blocks. Move on to the next problem, and study the formulas for static and kinetic friction, and when each applies.
why the µ for block is 0.3(between B and A) ? why can't be µ= 0.4( between B and C) ??
can you explain on that ?
 
Stop trying to make sense out of a problem that makes no sense, and move on.
 
  • #10
PhanthomJay said:
Stop trying to make sense out of a problem that makes no sense, and move on.
i still didnt get you . can you explain further ?
 
  • #11
werson tan said:
i still didnt get you . can you explain further ?
I see no way to make it any clearer than in my post #6.
 
  • #12
haruspex said:
I see no way to make it any clearer than in my post #6.
tat means there is something wrong with the question ?
 
  • #13
werson tan said:
tat means there is something wrong with the question ?
Yes!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K