Mass vs. compression with rollers

  • Thread starter Thread starter D9 XTC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compression Mass
AI Thread Summary
In the discussion, it is established that a clamp weighing 50 lbs exerts the same pressure on a piece of wood as a 500 lbs weight due to its position and force application. Despite exerting equivalent pressure, the clamp requires less force to move because it has significantly less mass. The rollers under both the clamp and the weight produce the same friction, which does not affect the comparative ease of movement. Therefore, the clamp is easier to move than the heavier weight, highlighting the relationship between mass and the force required for movement. This illustrates that lower mass can lead to reduced work needed for motion, even under equal pressure conditions.
D9 XTC
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Let's say the is a piece of wood with a few legs supporting it. There is a weight on it that weighs 500 lbs on the wood with rollers under it so it can move. Next to that is a clamp, let's say weighing 50 lbs, clamped onto the wood that is exerting the same amount of pressure onto the wood as the weight. The clamp also has rollers (weird yes...). The rollers on both produce the same amount of friction.

My question: does the clamp take less force to move having less mass yet exerting the same amount of pressure?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the less massive object, the clamp, takes less work to move than the other object.
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top