How long does it take mass m to fall distance h?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vandersmissen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fall Mass
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a mass m falling a distance h, involving forces such as tension, gravitational force, and friction. The problem is situated within the context of classical mechanics, specifically focusing on the motion of objects under the influence of forces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the derivation of equations related to the forces acting on the mass and the resulting acceleration. There are attempts to express the time taken for the mass to fall in terms of the given variables, while ensuring that the final expression adheres to specified constraints.

Discussion Status

The conversation has progressed through various iterations of the equations, with participants providing feedback on the correctness of expressions and the inclusion of friction. Some guidance has been offered regarding the representation of forces and the need to eliminate certain variables from the final expression.

Contextual Notes

Participants are required to express their final answer in terms of specific variables (m, M, h, θ, and μ), which has led to discussions about the normal force and frictional force in relation to the gravitational force acting on the mass.

vandersmissen
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



[PLAIN]http://rawrspace.com/Capture.JPG

So when you draw out a force diagram, we find these two equations
mg-T=ma
rewriting in terms of T
T=mg-ma
and
T-MgSin[tex]\vartheta[/tex]-f=Ma
rewriting in terms of T
T=Ma+MgSin[tex]\vartheta[/tex]+f

I set the two equations equal to each other so I could solve for the acceleration since it is as rest when it starts (I figured that means that initial velocity is 0 )
setting them equal I get:
mg-ma=Ma+MgSin[tex]\vartheta[/tex]+f
Then I moved them so that I could start factoring out terms:
g(m-MSin[tex]\vartheta[/tex])-f=a(M+m)
finally, solving for a:
[g(m-MSin[tex]\vartheta[/tex])-f]/(M+m)=a

I also know that y-y_0=V_0t-(1/2)at^2
Since y final is 0 and y_0 is h, I get this equation:
-h=-(1/2)at^2
So this means that
(2h/a)^(1/2)=t

Pluging in a that I solved for above, I get

{(2h)/[g(m-MSin[tex]\vartheta[/tex])-f]/(M+m)}^(1/2)=t

That was my answer of the time it takes for the mass m to fall a distance h. Does that seem correct to you, or am I overlooking something ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks right to me except your answer has f in it and you are specifically required to write the answer in terms of m, M, h, θ and μ. So how can you get rid of f and introduce μ?
 
Thank you for taking a look. I don't know why I wrote it like that on here, on my paper I have μN for the frictional force instead of just the f for frictional force..

Thank's again for taking a look.
 
You're still not there because μN won't do either. What is N in terms of the given quantities m, M, h, θ?
 
Well N is the normal force so it is the opposite component the gravitational force which is Mg so it would be -Mgcos[tex]\vartheta[/tex] wouldn't it (assuming I take my g to be positive)? That would still leave me with a g though which isn't in those terms. Is it okay to have g since it is a constant ? If so then I would replace -f with μMgcos[tex]\vartheta[/tex] (it would be positive correct, as -f = -μN = -μ(-Mgcos[tex]\vartheta[/tex]) )

So I would like to write my answer as

{(2h)/[g(m-Msin[tex]\vartheta[/tex])+μMgcos[tex]\vartheta[/tex]]/(M+m)}^(1/2)=t
 
Don't forget that, in your original expression, f stands for the magnitude of the frictional force. That is a positive number. So f = μN = Mgcosθ. You already took care of the direction when you wrote down T-Mgsinθ-f=Ma.
 
So It would be μMgcosθ correct since N = Mgcosθ , and f = μN

So that means that it would be -μMgcosθ in the problem instead of -f

t={[(2h)(M+m)]/[g(m-Msinθ)-μMgcosθ]}^1/2

I believe that would be correct as it is now in the correct terms, I moved the M+m to the numerator. Does that seem correct now, If it was -f which took care of the magnitude since it subtracted in the original force equation. Then replacing it with the information I derived above should be correct.
 
Right.
 
Thank you for helping me understand where I went wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K