Is My Calculation of Velocity at the Bottom of a Ramp Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aguycalledwil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Set
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving a box sliding down a ramp. The original poster attempts to calculate the velocity of a box with a mass of 10 kg at the bottom of a ramp inclined at 60 degrees, incorporating friction with a hypothetical kinetic coefficient of 0.5. The calculations involve forces acting on the box, including gravitational force and friction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the calculation of gravitational force along the ramp and the normal force. There are questions about the correct approach to finding the normal force and whether it should oppose the component of gravity acting down the ramp. Some suggest treating the problem as an energy problem instead of a forces problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's calculations, providing feedback and prompting a reevaluation of the normal force. There is a suggestion to consider an alternative method using energy principles, indicating a productive exploration of different approaches.

Contextual Notes

The original poster mentions uncertainty regarding the inclusion of the static coefficient of friction and expresses a desire to understand if this type of question is likely to appear in their upcoming GCSE exams.

aguycalledwil
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
After reading a bit on classical mechanics, I decided to set myself a somewhat simple to most, but quite challenging to me question. I managed to come to a final answer. I think I may have gone a little wrong, but I'd appreciate any help or guidance. Can anyone confirm if I'm right or wrong? N.B: I didn't include the static coefficient of friction as I don't know how to use both in the same problem. However, I believe I would be right to say that it shouldn't affect the answer...?

Okay, so the question I set myself is; If a box of mass 10 KG is put at the top of a ramp at 60 degrees and with a hypotenuse of length 6m, what will be the velocity of the box at the bottom of the ramp? (I included friction into the problem. I used a hypothetical kinetic coefficient of friction of 0.5).

So the known variables are: Ramp angle = 60 degrees.
Box mass = 10 KG
Kinetic Coefficient of friction = 0.5
Length of ramp (hypotenuse, not adjacent) = 6m

So here's what I did...

1) I found the force of gravity acting along the ramp. I found the force of gravity by doing the following.. 9.81*COS(90-60) = 8.5 m/s^2. Since F=ma, I found the component of gravity acting along the ramp to be 85N.
2) Next I found the same for friction. Since friction is the normal force times by the coefficient of friction, i did 85 (normal force) times by 0.5 (coefficient). This comes to 42.5.
3) To find the net force, I did the force of gravity (85N) minus the force of friction (42.5N). This comes to a total of 42.5N of force down the ramp.
4) Since F=ma, I found the acceleration to be 4.25 m/s^2.
5) With the formula v^2=2as, I found that 2*4.25*6=51. Finally, I found the square root of 51 to be 7.14.

This shows that the velocity at the bottom of the ramp is 7.14 m/s.

B.T.W, can anyone confirm whether this type of question is likely to come up in my GCSE next year? I want to get a solid idea on all of the topics while I can.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aguycalledwil said:
1) I found the force of gravity acting along the ramp. I found the force of gravity by doing the following.. 9.81*COS(90-60) = 8.5 m/s^2. Since F=ma, I found the component of gravity acting along the ramp to be 85N.
OK. (The component of gravity parallel to the ramp = mg sinθ.)
2) Next I found the same for friction. Since friction is the normal force times by the coefficient of friction, i did 85 (normal force) times by 0.5 (coefficient). This comes to 42.5.
Recalculate that normal force.
 
Doc Al said:
OK. (The component of gravity parallel to the ramp = mg sinθ.)

Recalculate that normal force.

Oh, thanks. :)

I'll do a re-run and post my answer in a bit. :)

EDIT: Okay, I'm having a little trouble with the normal force. The way I did it before, was to assume that the normal force was opposing the force of gravity that I had already found (acting down the ramp). Now I realize that I need to find the force perpendicular to the ramp, not parallel to it. (Can anyone confirm this thought?).

If this is the case, I'm stuck, because I'm not sure how to calculate this...
Help appreciated. ;)
 
Last edited:
aguycalledwil said:
EDIT: Okay, I'm having a little trouble with the normal force. The way I did it before, was to assume that the normal force was opposing the force of gravity that I had already found (acting down the ramp). Now I realize that I need to find the force perpendicular to the ramp, not parallel to it. (Can anyone confirm this thought?).
Yes, the normal force opposes the component of gravity perpendicular to the ramp. You need to be able to find the components of gravity parallel and perpendicular to the ramp. (It's just a bit of trig.)

Read this: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/u3l3e.cfm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you wanted to solve this question in an easier manner, i would propose to treat it as an energy problem as opposed to a forces problem. If you know the length of the ramp and its angle, you can find its height.
From there, just use this equation: Ug=KE+W(f)
where Ug is gravitational potential energy (mgh), KE is kinetic energy (.5mv^2), and W(f) is work done by friction, in this case, force of friction times distance of ramp.

you may have already solved the problem by now, but its always good to see if problems can be viewed as energy problems so save time and to avoid working with unneeded vectors
 

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K