MHB Friction Force: 1.3 kg Book on 16° Plank - Find the Answer!

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the frictional force acting on a 1.3 kg book on a 16° inclined plank with a friction coefficient of 0.45. The initial calculation yields a frictional force of 5.62 N using the formula F = coefficient of friction × R, but the textbook states the answer is 3.58 N. The discrepancy arises from the value of gravitational acceleration (g) used in the calculations; while 10 m/s² is common for hand calculations, using 9.8 m/s² is more accurate with a calculator. The correct formula to find the frictional force is f = μ × mg cos(θ). The conversation emphasizes the importance of using the appropriate value for g to achieve accurate results.
Shah 72
MHB
Messages
274
Reaction score
0
A book of mass 1.3 kg is on a plank of wood which is held at 16 degree to the horizontal. The coefficient of friction between the book and the plank is 0.45.
Find the size of the frictional force.
Iam getting the ans by using the formula F= coefficient of friction ×R
5.62N but the textbook ans is 3.58N.
Pls help
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
using 10 for g ...

$f = \mu \cdot mg\cos{\theta} = 5.62 \, N$

an aside ... since you're using a calculator anyway, why not use 9.8 for g? g = 10 is normally used when calculations are done by hand.
 
skeeter said:
using 10 for g ...

$f = \mu \cdot mg\cos{\theta} = 5.62 \, N$

an aside ... since you're using a calculator anyway, why not use 9.8 for g? g = 10 is normally used when calculations are done by hand.
Thank you!
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top