Kinetic Friction Experiment Conservation of Energy Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on an experiment designed to measure kinetic friction in a driveline using the conservation of energy principle. The proposed setup involves a pulley with a weighted system, differing from traditional experiments that use a sliding block. The initial energy is derived from the potential energy of the hanging mass, while the energy loss occurs when the mass falls, converting to kinetic energy. The main inquiry is whether the same methodology applies to calculate friction in the pulley instead of a sliding block, suggesting that the resistive force on the pulley could be equated to the frictional force. Confusion arises regarding the calculation of the pulling force and its equivalence to the frictional force, prompting a need for clarification on the underlying reasoning.
elliott87
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am currently working on an experiment to find the kinetic friction in a driveline. The experiment uses the principle of conservation of energy and is based on the following experiment: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Class/PhSciLab/frictionex.html

The difference in my proposed experiment is that instead of having the sliding block on the table, there would basically only be the pulley and a line would be wrapped completely around the pulley attached to a weighted system.

The initial energy balance would still be the potential energy of the hanging mass, and a withdrawal from the system would be the mass hitting the floor and losing kinetic energy. In the experiment in the link, the rest of the energy is said to go to the sliding block (assuming a frictionless pulley I'm guessing). My question is can the same methodology be used to calculate the friction in the pulley in the case of my experiment (no sliding block)? ie. Would the rest of the energy in the system, assuming it is kinetic friction keeping the mass from free falling at g, be equal to some frictional force over some distance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the friction is accounted for by the pulley and not the block then yes, you would be correct. The force over some distance would be the resistive force on the pulley and the distance would be the number of rotations the resistive force was exerted.
 
I'm a little confused near the end of this experiment when they solve for the force exerted on the block by the string (the pulling force) to be 0.63 N and then they say the frictional force is 0.63 N as well. What is the reasoning behind this? Here is the link again: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...rictionex.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thread '1:1 versus 2:1 Mechanical Advantage debate'

The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
View full post »

Thread 'Newton's first law?'

Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
View full post »
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'

Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
View full post »

Similar threads

Is Kinetic Friction a Conservative Force?
Replies
9
Views
2K
B Conservation of KE in a moving frame
Replies
3
Views
954
B Work and energy: conceptual doubt
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Understanding Net Internal Torque and Kinetic Friction in a System
Replies
9
Views
2K
Is conservation of energy derived from the work energy theorem?
2
Replies
65
Views
5K
B Conservation of momentum in a closed system
Replies
3
Views
2K
B Colliding balls: Conservation of momentum and changes in kinetic energy?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Kinetic Energy derivation assumption?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Is Mechanical Energy Conserved for Non-Conservative Forces?
Replies
14
Views
2K
I Question about Momentum vs. Kinetic Energy vs. Deforming In Collisions
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top