Explaining a Physics Phenomenon with a Snowy Photo

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on explaining a physics phenomenon observed in a snowy photo for a contest. The user describes how wet snow accumulated on a play set, creating a parabolic arch after sliding down due to exceeding the normal force. They propose that the weight of the snow overcame the normal force, while friction slowed its descent, causing it to freeze in place. Participants suggest that the shape is more accurately described as hyperbolic rather than parabolic and offer to help derive the mathematical explanation. The conversation emphasizes the need for a clear qualitative and quantitative understanding of the forces at play.
Jstuff
Messages
15
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have to submit a photo for a physics contest. I was thinking of using the picture in the attached, but I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to explain it in terms of physics. The background on the picture is: We had a very wet snow and as the snow built up on top it got to heavy and slid down the side of the play set but it stopped and created and sort of parabolic arch with supporting the middle. ( See attached picture.)


The Attempt at a Solution



I was thinking I could say as the snow accumulated on top of the play set the normal force was eventually exceeded by weight of the snow. As it was sliding down the frictional forces slowed it to a slow enough pace that the snow froze in place.
Is there anything wrong with this statement? Also, are there any other forces I should take into account?
Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • last palm pics 100.jpg
    last palm pics 100.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 387
Physics news on Phys.org
Not quite parabolic, try hyperbolic!
 
Thanks, but why exactly? Also, does anyone have any other ideas?
 
Well, I could derive why it produces a hyperbolic cosine here, if you like? With regards to a qualitative explanation, I'm sure someone else can provide a clearer answer than myself.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top