Force required to move a object on slope with rolling tyres

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the force required to move a 5-kilogram object on a 30-degree slope with rolling tyres, the formula F push = mgsin(theta) + coefficient of friction * mgcos(theta) was applied, yielding a result of 25.542 Newtons. The coefficient of friction used was 0.001, which is typical for rubber on steel, but there is uncertainty regarding its accuracy due to variations in tyre design and inflation pressure. The discussion highlights that rolling resistance is influenced by multiple factors, including mechanical friction in the wheel/axle system, which complicates the determination of a precise coefficient. While the method of calculation is sound, the lack of a specific rolling resistance value in the problem statement raises questions about the accuracy of the results. Overall, the approach is valid, but further clarification on the coefficient of rolling resistance is necessary for precise calculations.
adssd
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Consider a object of 5 kilos which is fixed with 4 rolling tyres (like in a trolly) which is in a slanting position of 30 degree angle.

My question:How to find the force required to move the object upwards the slope along with rolling resistance considered?

I tried the force using the F push formula for slope & i tried the coeffiecient for friction of tyres as 0.001

F push= mgsin(theta) + coeff of friction*mgsin(theta)
F push=5 * 9.8 *sin(30) + 0.001 * 5*9.8 * cos(30)
F push=25.542 Newton

Is this correct?

I researched this problem in google, but since the above problem deals with Rolling friction as its attached with tyres, what is the correct method to find the exact force! I s it the correct method to find the object moving up the slope with tyres ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You equation is correct.
 
JBA said:
You equation is correct.

is it the correct formulae to use it to my problem?
 
If the above is a full statement of the problem as presented to you then yes it is; however, I am surprised that you were not given a specific coefficient of rolling resistance as a part of the problem statement.
 
JBA said:
If the above is a full statement of the problem as presented to you then yes it is; however, I am surprised that you were not given a specific coefficient of rolling friction as a part of the problem statement.
as i am using steel surface and rubber tyres, i thought its coefficient is 0.001, but i seriously have a doubt over that coeffienct part..as the slope is steel and the tyre is rubber! is the co efficient i used here is right?
 
That is hard to say because the actual rolling resistance of a rubber tyre is a function of the tyre's individual design and even more importantly, its inflation pressure; as a result, to the best of my knowledge there is no one "accepted" value of rolling resistance for inflated rubber tyres.

As for steel wheels or hard rubber covered steel wheels, I have no background related to those; but, in all of these cases the ultimate rolling resistance is a factor that actually must include the mechanical wheel/axle bearing friction, etc. That is the reason, I am surprised you have not been given a specific value in your problem statement.

Ultimately, your equation provides for all possibilities, including a value of "0" so for that reason I would find it hard for anyone to question your method of calculation with no factor value given.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top