F=μmg. How was μ calculated? Obviously experiments were

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter luckis11
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiments
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of the coefficient of friction (μ) in the equation F=μmg, exploring how μ is determined experimentally and the implications of varying conditions such as material composition and environmental factors. Participants delve into the complexities of friction in different scenarios, particularly in the context of auto racing and physics problems involving free body diagrams.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that μ is determined empirically, suggesting that it varies based on conditions such as temperature and surface material.
  • Others argue that the variability of μ makes it more of a "best guess" in practical applications, particularly in auto racing where conditions change frequently.
  • A participant mentions that friction values can differ significantly between static and dynamic scenarios, which may be relevant in discussions about auto racing.
  • There are questions regarding the accuracy of example problems from H.Young's physics text, particularly concerning the calculations of forces and the interpretation of free body diagrams.
  • Some participants express confusion about the relationship between forces acting on an object and the net force, particularly in the context of inclined planes and friction.
  • Discussions about the nature of forces lead to inquiries about the definitions and roles of normal force and gravitational force in force analysis.
  • Several participants seek clarification on the proofs or justifications for the force analyses presented in the textbook examples, indicating a desire for deeper understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of views on the calculation and variability of μ, with no consensus on the best methods for determining it or the implications of its variability in practical scenarios. Additionally, there is ongoing debate regarding the correctness of specific examples from H.Young's text, with some participants expressing confusion and others attempting to clarify the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include the dependence on empirical data for μ, the variability introduced by different conditions, and unresolved questions regarding the accuracy of specific physics examples. The discussion also highlights the complexity of force analysis in scenarios involving multiple forces.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students studying physics, particularly those grappling with concepts of friction, force analysis, and the application of theoretical principles to practical problems.

  • #31


No comment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


You can obviously have forces acting without a mass accelerating.

What?
No you can't.

The sum of acceleration due to all forces may equate to 0, but that just implies at least two equal and opposite accelerations.
 
  • #33


_PJ_ said:
The sum of acceleration due to all forces may equate to 0, but that just implies at least two equal and opposite accelerations.
Nah. There's only one acceleration. There are multiple forces acting, not multiple accelerations.
 
  • #34


Doc Al said:
Nah. There's only one acceleration. There are multiple forces acting, not multiple accelerations.

If two equal and opposite forces act on an entity, they each provide an acceleration.

Imagine a car driving along a road. It has the engine providing acceleration forwards, plus gravity providing acceleration downwards. Two forces, two accelerations.


A force is only a force because it accelerates (confers energy to) an entity.
Acceleration is only a name for "result of action of a force"

So the two are mutually interchangeable in this sense.
 
  • #35


_PJ_ said:
If two equal and opposite forces act on an entity, they each provide an acceleration.
While you can imagine that if you like, it's misleading. Luckily, since net force and acceleration are proportional you'll 'get the right answer' despite a confusing physical picture.

Forces describe interactions whereas acceleration describes motion. You can have multiple forces acting, but only one resultant acceleration. When two equal and opposite forces act there is no acceleration.

Imagine a car driving along a road. It has the engine providing acceleration forwards, plus gravity providing acceleration downwards. Two forces, two accelerations.
Nope. Multiple forces may act, but the car has but a single acceleration.

A force is only a force because it accelerates (confers energy to) an entity.
Nope. Forces don't have to accelerate or confer energy to an object in order to exist.
Acceleration is only a name for "result of action of a force"
Better to say that the acceleration is the result of action of all the forces acting on a body.
 
  • #36


Anyway, let's say that "I am confused and there is no question".
However, some of my conclusions so far are:

The definition of Force is
mdu/dt= (mass)(the acceleration of the mass which happens visibly-macrocosmically)
so it's resultant force that sometimes happens.

mg can only be mdu/dt, there's no other proof that the force of gravity is that much, besides the acceleration of a mass at free fall.

Therefore, the definition of all forces besides the resultant, is unknown, and it is upon us to guess what they might be e.g. the mdu/dt that would had happened if the other non-resultant forces were not happening together. Or, that they might be momentums=(mass)(velocities) that strike the m (I call these green momentums).

So, one quess is "if the canted wall did not exist, the mdu/dt would be mg", so n is...?
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Perhaps you should review these:

* http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-3"
* http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-6"
* http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-7"
* http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/lecture-8"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38


luckis11 said:
Anyway, let's say that "I am confused and there is no question".
However, some of my conclusions so far are:

The definition of Force is
mdu/dt= (mass)(the acceleration of the mass which happens visibly-macrocosmically)
so it's resultant force that sometimes happens.

mg can only be mdu/dt, there's no other proof that the force of gravity is that much, besides the acceleration of a mass at free fall.

Therefore, the definition of all forces besides the resultant, is unknown, and it is upon us to guess what they might be e.g. the mdu/dt that would had happened if the other non-resultant forces were not happening together. Or, that they might be momentums=(mass)(velocities) that strike the m (I call these green momentums).

So, one quess is "if the canted wall did not exist, the mdu/dt would be mg", so n is...?
If you ignore the air particles, then the normal force (or what you call n) should be zero (since there isn't any normal force, since we are ignoring internal forces).

If you don't ignore the air particles, then the air particles hit against the falling body (which causes the momentum of the air particles to transfer from themselves to the falling body) we call this "air drag" which eventually gets bigger (because you hit more particles as you speed up due to gravity going down) and eventually the transfers of momentum will stop you from accelerating since so many particles will strike you.

An atom is at rest on Earth's surface and Gravity is pulling down on it. However the atom does not go through the Earth because another atom is under it. The atom under it is one of the atoms of the ground. As the atom on top is pushed down by gravity, the outer electron shells of the top atom and the bottom atom begin to repeal each other, since same charged particles repeal each other.

The force of the "repeal" is the normal force. As the top atom is pushed closer to the bottom atom by gravity, the repellent force of their electron shells grows until it has the same magnitude and direction as the force of gravity. (The atom under the bottom atom does the same thing and so on until you get to the center of the earth.)

Here people deem them to be "still", but since energy is conserved, eventually the electrons outer shell force or pressure (which is called Electron degeneracy pressure) would weaken and then the electrons would collapse into the nucleus of the atom. Hence, electrons are accelerated toward the center of the atom. People tend to ignore this fact because it's hard to observe and usually so small that it is negligible.

However, this only occurs when a lot of joules (energy) is applied to the electrons. Since the force of gravity is relatively weak in this scenario, it would not happen in a very long time.

The same thing occurs with multiple atoms and compounds, the electron shell "fights back" sometimes forming a bonded outer shell (hence compounds) in structures.

Edit: I am ignoring all the atoms under that bottom atom for simplification

luckis11 said:
mg can only be mdu/dt, there's no other proof that the force of gravity is that much, besides the acceleration of a mass at free fall.
Everything is a guess. But what I think your doing is decomposing every structural logic until nothing else is left of it. Sounds like something a teenager would do. Luckis11, Do you know the difference between force and acceleration?

Wikipedia: In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.

The electrons shape is changing, they are being compressed at an extremely slow rate.

I hope this clears some confusion, and I hope I've guessed right.

Edit: I over simplified some facts in my explanation. I did so because I do not want to write a "thesis" which would be too long for most people to want to read.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
10K