Friction as a conservative force

AI Thread Summary
Friction is discussed as a nonconservative force, raising questions about its decomposition into components when acting at an angle. In a horizontal plane, the equations of motion for a ball launched at 45° are examined, highlighting the challenges posed by friction's dissipative nature. The validity of using Lagrangian mechanics in the presence of friction is questioned, with suggestions to simplify the problem to one dimension. It is noted that if friction is isotropic, decomposing it into components may not be necessary. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the complexities of incorporating friction into mechanical equations.
kizzie
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
friction as a nonconservative force

I was wondering, can the friction force be split up? Suppose you have a friction force working under an angle alpha, can you just say Fx = Ffric*cos(alfa), Fy = Ffric*sin(alfa)

Suppose you're working in a flat horizontal plane, and you launch a ball in 45° direction, what are the equations of the ball in x and y?
mx" = -Fx = -Ffric cos (alfa)
my" = -Fy - -Ffric sin(alfa)

It seems that this does not works since the friction force is a nonconservative force ... Is Lagrange method still valid?

regards,
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the frictional force is the same in all directions ( isotropic) then there's no reason to decompose it as you suggest. Just rotate your frame.

As far as the Lagrangian goes, clearly the frictional force is dissipative. There are good lecture notes here -

http://tabitha.phas.ubc.ca/wiki/index.php/Dissipative_Forces
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When dealing with lagrangian mechanics it is always best to minimise the number of dependant variables, i.e. just make your situation 1D such that it is up and down the slope. So then you don't have to break up the force, you just have to alter (thru trig) the force from gravity.
 
And when it is very inconvenient to consider it 1D, is it still correct to split the forces into Fx and Fy?
 
It seems ok to do so. Give it a go. See where you end up.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?

Similar threads

Back
Top