B Equivalence of Frictional and Applied Force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the dynamics of frictional forces as described in Halliday Resnick Krane's text. It clarifies that when the frictional force equals the applied spring force, the body moves at constant velocity due to zero net force, indicating no acceleration. The conversation distinguishes between static and kinetic friction, noting that static friction holds the body until the applied force exceeds its limit, leading to sliding. Once in motion, kinetic friction, which is lower than static friction, allows the body to continue moving at a constant velocity. This understanding is crucial for grasping the principles of dynamics in one dimension.
mopit_011
Messages
17
Reaction score
8
TL;DR Summary
We can measure frictional forces. By placing the body on a horizontal surface where it experiences a frictional force, we could attach a spring and pull the body with just the right force so that it moves at constant velocity. Why would the body begin moving when the frictional force becomes equivalent to the applied force by the spring?
The following passage is from Halliday Resnick Krane in Chapter 3 which is about dynamics in one dimension.

"We can measure frictional forces. By placing the body on a horizontal surface where it experiences a frictional force, we could attach a spring and pull the body with just the right force so that it moves at constant velocity."

I had assumed that the passage was talking about static frictional force and do not understand why when the frictional force is equal to the applied spring force, the body would move at constant velocity. Wouldn't the net force still be 0 Newtons on the body meaning that it does not accelerate? Thank you so much!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mopit_011 said:
I had assumed that the passage was talking about static frictional force and do not understand why when the frictional force is equal to the applied spring force, the body would move at constant velocity. Wouldn't the net force still be 0 Newtons on the body meaning that it does not accelerate? Thank you so much!

Are you confusing acceleration and velocity? A body that moves at constant velocity has zero acceleration. "Zero" is a special case of constant velocity.
 
mopit_011 said:
... I had assumed that the passage was talking about static frictional force and do not understand why when the frictional force is equal to the applied spring force, the body would move at constant velocity. Wouldn't the net force still be 0 Newtons on the body meaning that it does not accelerate? Thank you so much!
I believe that the passage was referring to both, static and kinetic forms of friction between the static body and surface first, and then to the relative movement.

Clarification: Because the third law of Newton, the magnitude of the static frictional force is always equal to the magnitude of the spring force, from zero up to its limit (normal force times coefficient of static friction).

Once the magnitude of the force pulling or pushing our spring becomes greater than that limit, the body "detaches" from the "static grip" of the surface, and starts slidding over it.

After a small period of aceleration, the body should start sliding at constant velocity, as a new balance between kinetic friction and spring force is reached.

Because the value of the kinetic coefficient of friction is always smaller than the static one, the spring force should be constant and of lower value than the earlier reached max limit while the body keeps sliding at constant velocity (same velocity at which the force pulling or pushing the spring keeps moving).

You can find a better explanation here:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/6-2-friction/
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top