Good old wedge and block sliding problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving a physics problem involving a block on a frictionless wedge, where the wedge accelerates at 5 m/s². Participants explore two methods to find the block's relative acceleration down the slope, emphasizing the need to account for pseudo-forces in a non-inertial frame and the relationship between the accelerations of the block and wedge. One method involves resolving forces while considering the wedge's acceleration, while the other focuses on real forces and requires calculating the block's acceleration relative to the wedge. The challenge lies in correctly applying these methods to derive the desired equations, with confusion around the application of trigonometric relationships and the handling of multiple unknowns. Clarification on these methods and the use of LaTeX for better communication is suggested to aid understanding.
code.master
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
The problem is as follows.

We know the angle of the wedge to the horizontal. Let's say its a given.

We don't know the mass of the wedge or the mass of the block.

The planes are frictionless. The mass rests on a "frictionless table".

There is a force pushing the entire system. The acceleration of the wedge is equal to 5 m/s^2 towards its point along the table.

What is the relative acceleration of the block down the slope?

I already turned this problem in. I was able to get an answer that was like g\sin{\theta}-5\cos{\theta} but I was unable to show my complete derivation. I began by seperating the forces, and showing that the forces created acceleration on the block relative to the ground, then took the position that relative to the wedge, the accelerations must have satisfied the wedges triangle. so i got something like \tan\theta = F_y/F_x

From there its a wash for me. Could someone sort out this a bit for me? I drew my force diagrams, I did the calculations I was supposed to, I just kept getting something a little off. Maybe Ill see it in someones more elegant solution...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The two ways are there of thinking.
1
If we take the motion of the mass relative to the wedge then, as the wedge is accelerating, is a non inertial frame of reference, we have to consider a pshudoforce = ma (a is the acc. of the wedge) in the derection apposite to the acceleration a. Resolving these forces you will get your answer.

2.

If you want to consider only real forces then the acceleration of mass in x direction will be ax = a + ar cos@ where ar is the acceleration of mass relative to wedge, as the wedge is accelerating. and that in y direction is ay = ar sin@. You have tocalcutat ar.
 
Last edited:
Im sorry that I don't follow method 1 very well. I understand that the block and wedge are not in an IFR, and that we must make some sort of comparison to something that is in an IFR with itself, and that the relative motion of each the block and wedge can be described. this is obviously the ground. I went about this and didnt get the right answer. maybe you could specify what you mean about this part

"consider a pshudoforce = ma (a is the acc. of the wedge) in the derection apposite to the acceleration a. Resolving these forces you will get your answer"

does this mean that when i plug my forces back into the \tan\theta equation, i would be adding the A_wedge to the A_block, then resolving that? that seems backwards, and still doesn't give me the right solution in the algebra, it only changes the sign of the solution from 9\cos\theta-5\sin\theta to 9\cos\theta+5\sin\theta when what i really want is 9\sin\theta-5\cos\theta. maybe you can help me understand that method more.

as to method 2. how does a_y = a_r \sin\theta expand to solve for a_r? I am not sure i see how to find a solution easily from a single equation with multiple unknowns. a_r is unknown, and a_y is unknown, it involves the normal force and the mass of the block, both of which are also unknown. maybe you can be a bit more specific. i think i know that this leads us to finding two expressions for a_x and a_y and then using them both, but that's more like method 1, as above. i know the language barrier is hard to overcome for some, maybe using more latex would help?
 
Did a long thinking now enjoy solutions ! :smile: See the attachment.
 

Attachments

I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top