Friction problem- possible error in Halliday/Resnick

  • Thread starter Thread starter Syrus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Friction
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a friction problem from a physics textbook, specifically focusing on part b) of the problem after part a) has been solved. Participants are examining the relationship between the static friction coefficient and the angle of inclination.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are discussing the derivation of the angle θ0 in relation to the static friction coefficient μs. There are attempts to clarify the notation used in the solution and to explore different methods of proving the relationship. Questions about the validity of the original solution and the need for explicit derivation are raised.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their interpretations and questioning the assumptions made in the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the limits of force and the implications for the angle, while others are exploring the need for more straightforward proofs.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem is derived from an elementary physics text, which raises questions about the complexity of the proofs expected in such contexts. There is also mention of specific values and relationships that may not be fully detailed in the problem statement.

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: 511
  • IMAG0537.jpg
    IMAG0537.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 519
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 because 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 [tex]F=\frac{mg\mu_k}{\sin(\theta)-\mu_k \cos(\theta)}[/tex]
The mop is pushed, so it can not be negative. What does it mean for theta?

ehild
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K