Finding the time when the car starts to skid (Kleppner 2.29)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dazed&Confused
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Time
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem from Kleppner's "Introduction to Mechanics," specifically about a car skidding on a rotating platform. The participants analyze the car's acceleration using polar coordinates and derive that the car begins to skid when the absolute value of acceleration equals the maximum frictional force, leading to a formula for the time of skidding. There is some uncertainty regarding the complexity of finding the frictional force relative to the car's position just before skidding, with suggestions to simplify the calculations. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding the underlying physics and managing complexity in problem-solving. The participants express a sense of learning and confidence gained through tackling the problem.
Dazed&Confused
Messages
190
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


This problem is taken from Kleppner's Intoduction to Mechanics and is problem 2.29.

A car is driven on a large revolving platform which rotates with constant angular speed \omega. At time t=0 a driver leaves the origin and follows a line painted radially outward on the platform with constant speed v_0. The total weight of the car is W, and the coefficient of friction between the car and stage is \mu.

a. Find the acceleration of the car as a function of time using polar coordinates.

b. Find the time at which the car starts to skid.

Homework Equations



Acceleration in polar coordinates (\dot{r}\ -r \dot{\theta}^2 )\hat{r} +(r \ddot{\theta} +2\dot{r}\dot{\theta})\hat{\theta}.

f_{MAX} =\mu W, where f is friction.

The Attempt at a Solution



So the acceleration is (-v_0t\omega^2 )\hat{r} +(2v_0\omega)\hat{\theta}.

I think the time the car begins to skid when the frictional force cannot provide the necessary acceleration, or when the acceleration is \geq \mu g. I would then find the absolute value of the acceleration, equate it to \mu g, and solve for t. I'm not sure if this is correct, however.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have meticulously verified that this is correct. It turns out the exponential formula ##r e^{j\theta}## is safe to use which is nice.

##x(t) = v_0te^{jwt}##
##a(t) = [- v_0 w^2 t + 2vwj] e^{jwt}##

And I agree that ##|a(t)| = \mu g## is the correct calculation to do.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Well using that I get t = \dfrac{1}{\omega}\sqrt{\left(\dfrac{\mu^2g^2}{v_0^2\omega^2} -4\right)}.
 
Right, you've solved it. It's a strange formula but it must be correct.
 
verty said:
Right, you've solved it. It's a strange formula but it must be correct.

The thing is part c. asks me to find the frictional force with respect to the instantaneous position vector r just before it starts to skid. I think this could give a messy result.
 
Dazed&Confused said:
The thing is part c. asks me to find the frictional force with respect to the instantaneous position vector r just before it starts to skid. I think this could give a messy result.

Hmm, so they want mass times acceleration at time t, which requires substituting t into a(t).

##a(t) = v_0 w [-wt \hat{r} + 2 \hat{\theta}]##

I see no value in substituting for t here. I suppose this question was about managing complexity and being confident of each step. I certainly learned something doing it. So I suppose it wasn't such a bad question after all.
 
verty said:
Hmm, so they want mass times acceleration at time t, which requires substituting t into a(t).

##a(t) = v_0 w [-wt \hat{r} + 2 \hat{\theta}]##

I see no value in substituting for t here. I suppose this question was about managing complexity and being confident of each step. I certainly learned something doing it. So I suppose it wasn't such a bad question after all.

Sorry I read the question incorrectly. It was actually to find the direction of the frictional force which would require \text{arctan}.
 
I would just skip that part, that is too complicated. And anyway it's just the angle of the acceleration and one could always find it by substituting the values first and then finding the angle.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
verty said:
I would just skip that part, that is too complicated. And anyway it's just the angle of the acceleration and one could always find it by substituting the values first and then finding the angle.

Ok. Thank you for your help.
 
Back
Top