- #36
Medgirl314
- 561
- 2
Is anyone still around? How does this look so far?
m2 g - MN = (m1 + m2)0
Would that cancel out m1+m2, leaving m2g-MN?
m2 g - MN = (m1 + m2)0
Would that cancel out m1+m2, leaving m2g-MN?
Yes, except that's not an equation. What equation do you think it leaves? And what can you substitute for N?Medgirl314 said:Is anyone still around? How does this look so far?
m2 g - MN = (m1 + m2)0
Would that cancel out m1+m2, leaving m2g-MN?
Nearly right. I'm saying you didn't do the cancellation correctly because what you wrote afterwards was not an equation.Medgirl314 said:Lightgrav, haruspex was saying that after m1+m2 canceled out, it wouldn't be an equation, because there isn't an "=" sign in m2g-MN.
Yes. And N equals?Medgirl314 said:m2 g - MN = 0
Is that all for deriving the equation?
N is the normal force from a horizontal table on a block placed on it, right? In terms of the mass of the block, what does that equal?Medgirl314 said:Do we need to move this equation around the find N, and then plug everything we know into the equation above?
haruspex said:N is the normal force from a horizontal table on a block placed on it, right? In terms of the mass of the block, what does that equal?
Can't even find it any more. All I find is haruspex, lightgrav and me begging you to fill in N = m1 gSorry, I'm just still confused on why haruspex said to solve for N and then you said I didn't need to. I forgot m1 is given.
That's the right answer. It has nothing to do with gravity "helping". As your equation shows, gravity canceled out, so as long as it is nonzero you will get the same result.Medgirl314 said:Using this equation:m2=μm1
m2=0.25*12
m2=3
Hmm. I can't decide if this sounds reasonable. At first I thought m2 would have to be bigger than m1, but gravity is probably helping a little. Could someone check the equation/arithmetic? It almost just looks to simple.