Equivalence of tipping conditions on an inclined plane

AI Thread Summary
The discussion examines the tipping conditions of a cube on an inclined plane, focusing on the relationship between unbalanced torque and the forces acting on the cube. It questions whether the conditions for tipping are equivalent when the line of action of gravity extends outside the cube's base while friction prevents sliding. A counterexample is provided using a cuboid to illustrate that an object can slide without tipping, even when friction is sufficient. The analysis concludes that the angle at which the line of action of gravity exits the base is consistent with the angle derived from static conditions, raising the need for verification of frictional force adequacy. Ultimately, it emphasizes the importance of confirming that friction is sufficient to prevent sliding before determining tipping angles.
ChessEnthusiast
Messages
115
Reaction score
3
We have a cube on an inclined plane.
The tipping condition is the presence of an unbalanced torque relative to the center of mass (contributing forces are: the normal force and the force of friction).

However, is this conditions equivalent to the previous one:
The line of action of the force of gravity points outside the base of the cube AND the force of friction is large enough to prevent the cube from sliding?

If not, it it easy to think of a simple counterexample?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
An object can slide without tipping over.
 
Let's say I have a cuboid with sides $a$, $a$ and $3a$.
The distance of the line of action of the force of friction from the center of gravity is $\frac 3 2 a$
As for the reaction force, the maximal distance will be $\frac a 2$.
We are considering the static case. Therefore, the force of friction:
$$F_f = mg \sin(\theta)$$
And the normal force
$$F_n = mg \cos(\theta)$$
In the language of torques:
$$\frac{3}{2}a mg \sin(\theta) = \frac{1}{2}a mg \cos(\theta)$$
$$3 sin(\theta) = cos(\theta)$$
$$\tan(\theta) = \frac{1}{3}$$
$$\theta = 18 \deg$$
This is exactly the same angle that I get when I try to work out the situation when the force of gravity is getting outside the base of the cuboid (once again, I'm considering the static case).
Is it a coincidence?
 

Attachments

  • cube3.PNG
    cube3.PNG
    2.9 KB · Views: 488
ChessEnthusiast said:
We are considering the static case.
You cannot just assume this. You need to verify that you can get a friction force that is large enough.
 
Suppose that I know that the object will not slide - is it, then, sufficient to find the angle that causes the line of action to leave the base of the cuboid?
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top