Interpreting a banked circular motion question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around interpreting a physics problem involving a suitcase on a baggage carousel, focusing on circular motion and friction. The key points include the clarification that while the coefficient of static friction is provided, it is not necessary for the suitcase's motion since it is not sliding and the normal force can provide the required centripetal acceleration. Participants confirm that the slope of the carousel is oriented incorrectly for effective centripetal acceleration, suggesting that static friction is needed to counteract the adverse camber. The conversation emphasizes the importance of resolving forces correctly to understand the dynamics involved. Overall, the interpretation of the problem aligns with the principles of circular motion and force balance.
BOAS
Messages
546
Reaction score
19
Hello,

I think I know how to do this question, but i'd really like to check that I'm interpreting what the question means correctly.

Homework Statement



The drawing shows a baggage carousel at the airport. Your suitcase has not slid all the way down the slope and is going around at a constant speed on a circle (r = 11.0m) as the carousel turns. The coefficient of static friction between the suitcase and the carousel is 0.760 and the angle θ of the slope is 36°. How much time is required for your suitcase to go around once?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I can't provide the picture, but it is simply a cone with a slope of 36° to the horizontal with a suitcase partway down the sloped surface.

The question provides a coefficient of static friction but since the suitcase isn't moving relative to the carousel, surely there's no friction, right?


I've drawn free body diagrams and summed my forces in the x and y direction which all boil down to tanθ = v2 / rg Which is easily solvable for v and then simple enough to find time period T.

I'm just a bit worried that I haven't used the information about friction in the question, but I can't actually see a reason to...

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have done it correctly .If the normal force is sufficient to provide the required centripetal acceleration as well as balance the weight,then friction doesn't come in picture .
 
Awesome, I imagine the coefficient of friction is there to try and catch us out :)

Thank you.
 
Tanya Sharma said:
You have done it correctly .If the normal force is sufficient to provide the required centripetal acceleration as well as balance the weight,then friction doesn't come in picture .
If it's anything like the carousels I'm familiar with, it's a cone, not an inverted cone. The slope is the wrong way to provide centripetal acceleration. The static friction is necessary not only to provide the acceleration but also overcome the adverse camber.
 
Yes, it's a standard carousel and it does make sense about the slope being the wrong way.

fmax = μs fN

Does this act perpendicular to the normal force in the opposite direction of mgsinθ?

And then I need to resolve in the usual manner
 
BOAS said:
Yes, it's a standard carousel and it does make sense about the slope being the wrong way.

fmax = μs fN

Does this act perpendicular to the normal force in the opposite direction of mgsinθ?

And then I need to resolve in the usual manner

Yes.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top