Friction and Newton's second law

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the application of Newton's second law in a friction problem involving multiple blocks. The key point is that the total mass used in the equation should account for all blocks in the system, leading to m = 5M rather than just the mass of one block. The participant initially miscalculated by considering only one block's mass, which led to confusion about the forces involved. The conversation emphasizes the importance of drawing free-body diagrams and analyzing the system as a whole to correctly apply the laws of motion. Ultimately, the participants clarify the relationship between the forces and the acceleration of the entire system, enhancing their understanding of the problem.
Joshuarr
Messages
23
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


It's attached.


Homework Equations



F = m*a
F_f = -μ_k*F_N // [Force of friction] = μ_k*[Normal force]

The Attempt at a Solution


So, I think I managed to solve it -- at least, I got what the book got, but I don't understand part of what I did to get the answer.

This is how I solved it and got the answer the book got:
I drew a free-body diagram, and realized that F_n = 2Mg
Which means F_f = -μ_k*2Mg, Block 2 is being pulled by an effective force to the right of Mg (Since -Mg + 2Mg = Mg).
So the summation of all the forces in the x direction would be:

***: Mg + F_f = Mg - μ_k*2Mg = (5*M)a

Plugging in for a and other known values and some algebra later, I get μ_k = 0.37

And that's the answer the book gives.

My question is why is it m = 5M in Newton's second law (the *** equation). When I first tried to solve it I used the mass of the 2nd block (m = 2M) and I thought that was correct.. apparently not.

Please explain this to me. Thanks in advance!
 

Attachments

  • 2012-05-19 09-17-24.910.jpg
    2012-05-19 09-17-24.910.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 518
Physics news on Phys.org
think of it in a linear manner (see attached file). You will probably understand it now.
 

Attachments

  • remake.png
    remake.png
    5.1 KB · Views: 539
Joshuarr said:
***: Mg + F_f = Mg - μ_k*2Mg = (5*M)a

Plugging in for a and other known values and some algebra later, I get μ_k = 0.37

And that's the answer the book gives.

My question is why is it m = 5M in Newton's second law (the *** equation). When I first tried to solve it I used the mass of the 2nd block (m = 2M) and I thought that was correct.. apparently not.

The equation relates the total force on the system of the three blocks to their acceleration. If you take m=2M that would be considering only the force on the block of mass 2M, and its force equation would be different(involving tensions in string, etc). The 5M is for the system of all the three blocks taken together.
 
Thanks, that did help a lot. :)
 
Normally i calculate for each mass.

Check where the direction of acceleration
1.(3M)-
3Mg - F1=3Ma

2 (2M)
F1-F3-friction=2Ma

3. (M)
F3-Mg=Ma


(1)+(2) +(3)

3Mg-Mg-friction =6Ma
net force=ma(Newton 2nd Law)
 
Last edited:
lol, I was stuck on a problem involving tensions (I was using the total mass for m), and then I remember your saying something about that. Thanks! :)
 
Basically when you judge it from the accelerating frame of reference then there will be a pseudo force acting on each of the spheres which amounts to 5Ma.

From a non accelerating frame draw an FBD for each of the blocks seperately and then solve the equations simultaneously. You will get what you were missing earlier.
 
I think your 3M is a mistake (it's 1M, 2M, 2M), but I understand what you're saying.

Oh. So it always ends up as a linear system of equations with n equations n unknowns (where n is the # of bodies), so I can use matrices! The other unknowns in this case would be the two tensions, what you called F1 and F2.

Thanks for helping me generalize the solution to the problem.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by an "accelerating frame of reference." The frame of reference would be the table (which is stationary), no?

I think by spheres you mean blocks, or perhaps that is some concept that I'm unfamiliar with..

Oh.. In this situation I would use the latter approach, right? Since there is a non-accelerating (stationary in fact) frame of reference.

You seem to imply that this problem has an accelerating frame of reference though, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
 
  • #10
Actually both the approaches are applicable and by accelerating FOR I mean the blocks itself ( sphere was a mistake).
 
Back
Top