Is a bicycle or dirtbike an example of f=ma?

AI Thread Summary
A dirt bike is a suitable example of Newton's F=ma principle, as its engine generates force that results in torque, ultimately leading to the bike's acceleration. The interaction between the wheel and the ground involves torque, which is the rotational equivalent of force. The point where the wheel contacts the ground is referred to as the "contact patch." The torque applied to the wheel, divided by the tire's radius, produces a backward force on the ground, which in turn generates an equal forward force, leading to acceleration. Understanding these concepts clarifies the mechanics behind how both bicycles and dirt bikes operate.
fourthlaw
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey all - this is my first post so I mght as well say hi -

I'm not very smart, but find everyday physics interesting. I tried to look up Newton's Laws, but I can't figure out:

Is a dirt bike or bicycle a good example of the f=ma principle?

All the info I found states that the force is a 'pushing' force, i.e, someone pushing the object. I can see the bicycle with the pedals fitting the explanation, but is a dirtbike an example of this law?

Also, is there a name for the point where the wheel pushes off the ground (propulsion? inertia?) Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The interaction between the wheel and the ground is called torque. Torque is the rotational analogue of force. A dirt bike is a good example of F = m A, because the engine produces a force (in the pistons) which produces a torque (through the cams) which rotates the chain which produces a torque on a wheel which rotates the wheeel which produces and acceleration of the bike as a whole.
 
ok - I thought so! Thanks for your help.
 
fourthlaw said:
Also, is there a name for the point where the wheel pushes off the ground.
The name for the "point" is "contact patch", where the tire is in contact with the ground. The torque on the wheel, divided by the radius of the tire equals the backwards horizontal force applied to the ground. The ground "reacts" with an equal and opposite forwards force and this force / mass of (rider + vehicle) = acceleration.
 
The name for the "point" is "contact patch", where the tire is in contact with the ground. The torque on the wheel, divided by the radius of the tire equals the backwards horizontal force applied to the ground. The ground "reacts" with an equal and opposite forwards force and this force / mass of (rider + vehicle) = acceleration.
When I first read that I was like ":eek:!", but once I read it again it made sense. Thanks. :approve:
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top