If Kinetic friction is a constant can I accelerate forever?

AI Thread Summary
Kinetic friction is constant at 5 N, but the limiting friction of 10 N means that once the object is in motion, the applied force must exceed this to maintain acceleration. If a continuous force of 20 N is applied, the net force acting on the object will be 10 N, leading to acceleration. Reducing the applied force to 6 N results in a net force of 1 N, allowing for continued acceleration, albeit at a slower rate. The discussion highlights the relationship between force, friction, and the resulting heat generated from motion. Ultimately, understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing motion and energy in physics.
sameeralord
Messages
659
Reaction score
3
If a limiting friction of an object is 10N and the kinetic friction is 5 N.

If I apply a force of 20 N continuosly would I be accelerating with a 5 N force forever.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sameeralord said:
If a limiting friction of an object is 10N and the kinetic friction is 5 N.

If I apply a force of 20 N continuosly would I be accelerating with a 5 N force forever.

Hi sameeralord! :smile:

(limiting friction is the maximum value of static friction)

No … you would be accelerating with a 10 N force forever …

once the object has started moving, you can forget the static friction completely (and you can reduce the applied force).

So if you apply a force of 6 N continuously, you will be accelerating with a 1 N force forever. :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
you would be accelerating with a 10 N force forever
You meant 15 N. Right?
 
DaleSpam said:
You meant 15 N. Right?

Right! :smile:
 
You do need more and more power to overcome friction. The heat produced will become a problem too.
 
Now this is a "work" problem. Are you familiar with "work"?

Work is a measurement of energy, and is equal to force X distance.

In this case, 15N (the force of friction) times the distance the object slides = the heat energy given off (in "joules").

So, when the object is moving faster, it covers more distance per unit time, so it also generates more heat per unit time.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top