Greatest Force without causing the rod to slip

  • Thread starter Thread starter frownifdown
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Rod Slip
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving the calculation of force (F) using a specific equation, which the poster claims to have derived from combining other equations. Despite plugging in their numbers and getting results of 9.96 and 9.56, the answers are not accepted, leading to confusion. Other participants point out potential errors in the equation, suggesting it may lack proper parentheses and does not seem to yield the expected proportionality to mass. The urgency of the poster's situation is highlighted, as they need to submit their work soon, but they are encouraged to understand the derivation of the equation rather than just seeking a quick answer. The conversation emphasizes the importance of grasping the underlying physics concepts for better comprehension.
frownifdown
Messages
72
Reaction score
0
1. Here is the problem http://i.imgur.com/DeCXHNE.png
2. F=-cos45-sin45μ+(weight*μ*cos45)/.5-cos45
3. I plugged the numbers in the equation which we got by combining other equations for F, and I got 9.96 and it isn't accepting it. My other friends used this equation with their problems and they got the right answers. I don't understand why mine isn't working
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
frownifdown said:
1. Here is the problem



2. F=-cos45-sin45μ+(weight*μ*cos45)/.5-cos45



3. I plugged the numbers in the equation which we got by combining other equations for F, and I got 9.96 and it isn't accepting it. My other friends used this equation with their problems and they got the right answers. I don't understand why mine isn't working

Something missing from this post?
 
berkeman said:
Something missing from this post?

Ah crap! I suppose it is. Fixed :redface:
 
frownifdown said:
2. F=-cos45-sin45μ+(weight*μ*cos45)/.5-cos45
Is that with all appropriate parentheses? Anyway, I don't get an equivalent equation. How did you arrive at the equation, what did number did you get, and what is the book's answer?
 
haruspex said:
Is that with all appropriate parentheses? Anyway, I don't get an equivalent equation. How did you arrive at the equation, what did number did you get, and what is the book's answer?

To be honest, it was my buddy that got the equation. It was a long and complicated process but I know it is right because he got it without using numbers and it worked with his numbers and my other friends numbers, but for some reason it isn't working with mine.

Can anyone chip in with some help?
 
frownifdown said:
To be honest, it was my buddy that got the equation. It was a long and complicated process but I know it is right because he got it without using numbers and it worked with his numbers and my other friends numbers, but for some reason it isn't working with mine.

Can anyone chip in with some help?
I asked two other questions: what number do you get and what is the correct number?
Btw, it doesn't seem very educational for you to be using your buddy's equation without knowing how it was derived. How about you post your own attempt to derive it?
 
haruspex said:
I asked two other questions: what number do you get and what is the correct number?
Btw, it doesn't seem very educational for you to be using your buddy's equation without knowing how it was derived. How about you post your own attempt to derive it?

I know it isn't very educational but it isn't going to be on the test and I really don't understand how he did it. I got 9.56 as the answer but that isn't it, and we all did it with my numbers about three different times and got that each time. I don't know what the right answer is, or I wouldn't be asking here. I have like 4 hours to get this submitted and still have to study everything.
 
frownifdown said:
I know it isn't very educational but it isn't going to be on the test and I really don't understand how he did it. I got 9.56 as the answer but that isn't it, and we all did it with my numbers about three different times and got that each time. I don't know what the right answer is, or I wouldn't be asking here. I have like 4 hours to get this submitted and still have to study everything.
The equation you posted is flat wrong. It makes no sense since the answer must be proportional to the mass. I also suspect that you have omitted parentheses. It reads F=-cos45-sin45μ+(((weight*μ*cos(45))/.5)-cos45, which simplifies to F=-2cos45 - μ sin45 + 2*weight*μ*cos45. That calculates as 4.27, not 9.56 or 9.96.
I'm sorry you're under time pressure, but my aim (and the principle behind this forum) is to help you understand the physics, not merely pass tests.
 
haruspex said:
The equation you posted is flat wrong. It makes no sense since the answer must be proportional to the mass. I also suspect that you have omitted parentheses. It reads F=-cos45-sin45μ+(((weight*μ*cos(45))/.5)-cos45, which simplifies to F=-2cos45 - μ sin45 + 2*weight*μ*cos45. That calculates as 4.27, not 9.56 or 9.96.
I'm sorry you're under time pressure, but my aim (and the principle behind this forum) is to help you understand the physics, not merely pass tests.

And I appreciate it greatly. It's so frustrating that I can't grasp these concepts and it's not something that I'm used to when it comes to math classes. So are you saying that the final answer is 4.27? Because it's not accepting that either.
 
  • #10
frownifdown said:
And I appreciate it greatly. It's so frustrating that I can't grasp these concepts and it's not something that I'm used to when it comes to math classes. So are you saying that the final answer is 4.27? Because it's not accepting that either.
No, I'm saying that (1) the equation as posted makes no sense and (2) it doesn't seem to be the equation you actually used since it doesn't give the number you say.
If you show some attempt to derive the equation I'll help you through it.
 
  • #11
haruspex said:
No, I'm saying that (1) the equation as posted makes no sense and (2) it doesn't seem to be the equation you actually used since it doesn't give the number you say.
If you show some attempt to derive the equation I'll help you through it.

Alright, well I'll give it my best. If you could just start me out though, I don't have my notes with me for the two equations that I started with.
 
  • #12
Alright I have only 18 minutes left for this. I know it's not useful for learning, but could someone just solve this for me? I will stick around and figure it out after, but I have to get this in. Difference between 80 and 95% on this HW.
 
  • #13
Alright well thanks for the help anyways
 
  • #14
In the hope that you get back to this some time, let the tension in the cable be T. Write down the two standard ƩF=ma equations (a being 0 here), one for the vertical and one for the horizontal. Be careful with the normal force from the ground - do not assume it's mg. Remember that the tension in the cable is also pushing down on the rod.
You will need a third equation. That, of course, will come from taking moments about some point. I suggest using the point where the rod touches the ground; that will make the equation as simple as possible.
 

Similar threads

Rolling without slipping problem
Replies
42
Views
3K
Kinetic Energy of a Cylinder Rolling Without Slipping
Replies
21
Views
4K
Rod with Current on Rails in Magnetic Field
Replies
12
Views
1K
Mechanics: A bowling ball is thrown and rolls with slipping
Replies
8
Views
4K
Slipping transitioning to rolling without slipping
Replies
6
Views
2K
To find the angle between the ground and rods in limiting friction
Replies
5
Views
2K
Cylinder Rolling Down an Incline Without Slipping
Replies
7
Views
4K
How does the incline of the rod depend on mass and force F?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Ball rolls without slipping in an accelerating car
Replies
6
Views
3K
Why Isn't the Spring Force Sum of Both Ends?
Replies
5
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top