Discrepancy with Normal Force Problems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights confusion around calculating normal force components in Newtonian physics problems. One example shows a problem where the x component of the normal force (FN) is not considered, while another instructional example incorrectly applies trigonometric functions to the normal force on a ramp. The user realizes that the x component of FN should indeed be zero, as cos 90 equals zero, and the y component is simply FN. They also acknowledge a mistake in their approach to a similar problem involving the ramp's orientation. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the application of forces in different scenarios.
Physkat
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
As I try to set up equations regarding Newtonian forces, I am looking for patterns in example problems I read. It's really frustrating then when I see different approaches that I can't see a connection to.

There are two problems that I've attached that seem to solve - what seems to me about the same content - differently.

First, the "physics book" file. This is a problem from on Forces and Newton's Laws of Motion. When calculating Fx, this problem does NOT take into account FN (Normal force). Other problems I have seen set up like this say the "x component of FN is 0, and the y component of FN is FN. The x components in this problem are dealing with W and T, which I get.

Next, look at the screen shots (in succession) I took of my online instructional of the same topic. Here you will see that for a similar object in a similar situation (a block that is on a ramp), they say the x component of FN is FN*cos90, and the y component is FN*sin90. It seems strange because since they have it lined up on the y axis, would not the x component be 0, and the y component be FN? I don't get the rationale for accounting for the cos/sin90 part. I know we are trying to find the angle ultimately, but why the difference in the approaches and how do I differentiate between the two?
Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • physics book.JPG
    physics book.JPG
    69.8 KB · Views: 481
  • Screen #1.png
    Screen #1.png
    30.6 KB · Views: 491
  • Screen #2.png
    Screen #2.png
    25.5 KB · Views: 502
  • Screen #3.png
    Screen #3.png
    17.5 KB · Views: 485
Physics news on Phys.org
Physkat said:
they say the x component of FN is FN*cos90

Physkat said:
would not the x component be 0
And what is the value of cos 90?
 
Oh boy - I feel silly. Zero, of course. Thank you Haruspex. I was so focused on the set up of the problem I looked past that. Then the sin90*FN would simply be FN, as I originally thought. And I also tried to do the screen shot problem in a slightly different way (I tried the ramp sloping down from the right, whereas they had it down from the left), thinking I would get the same answer, but I did not. So I need to go back and see what I did wrong. Anyway, thank you again for this simple insight!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top