Friction problem- possible error in Halliday/Resnick

  • Thread starter Thread starter Syrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Friction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a potential error in the Halliday/Resnick textbook regarding the derivation of the angle θ0 in a friction problem. The original solution states tan-1(μs) = θ0, which some participants find questionable based on their calculations. There is a debate about the complexity of the proof and whether a more straightforward derivation using Newton's laws is warranted. Participants suggest exploring limits and alternative methods to clarify the relationship between force and angle. Overall, the conversation highlights the challenges of understanding and solving friction-related problems in introductory physics.
Syrus
Messages
213
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



See attachment. I am only concerned with part b). Part a) is solved.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



See attachment. The solution is quoted to be tan-1s) = θ0, but, as can be seen by my solution, this is impossible based on the derivation. Is this their error, or mine?
 

Attachments

  • IMAG0536.jpg
    IMAG0536.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 496
  • IMAG0537.jpg
    IMAG0537.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 500
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What did you do for part a?
Not sure if it will work, but try taking your answer for part a, and having v->0.
 
I solved for F in part a). I display the results (verified correct) at the top of the page. I'd like to see how the value for theta naught is explicity obtained.
 
You said the solution is tan(μs) = θ0. Do you mean tan-1s) = θ0?
 
Yes, apologies- it's edited now.
 
Well, just take the limit when force goes to infinity. When the angle is less than θ0, no amount of force will be able to move the mop.
 
I considered that, but I wondered if there were any better ways of showing this. Plus, this example is from an elementary (Halliday/Resnick) text, and such un-straightforward proofs seem unwarranted in problem-solving. Just some thoughts. Is an explicit derivation out of the question?
 
This seems like one of the more "challenging" problems. As such, more out-of-the-box thinking is required. This method is pretty good as it stands. What would you consider a "better" way?
Why is this an "un-straightforward proof" or not "an explicit derivation"?
 
Fair enough. The only reason I said what I did above was becuase other problems and results derived throughout the book are a bit more explicit in using Newton's laws to demonstrate the results. I can accept this method, just inquiring about other manners.
 
  • #10
The value for F should be multiplied by μk.
 
  • #11
You overcomplicate the problem a bit.
You got F=\frac{mg\mu_k}{\sin(\theta)-\mu_k \cos(\theta)}
The mop is pushed, so it can not be negative. What does it mean for theta?

ehild
 
Back
Top