No solution can be attempted without the mass of the block.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mujadeo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Block Turntable
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the maximum distance from the axis of rotation at which a brass block can be placed on a revolving turntable without sliding off. The coefficient of friction is given, along with the angular frequency of the turntable.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the necessity of the block's mass for solving the problem and explore using placeholders for mass in equations. Questions arise regarding the relationship between radius and velocity, and how to derive one from the other without known values.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, attempting to set up equations and identify relationships between variables. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of angular frequency to find velocity, and there is a recognition of the need to equate different expressions for velocity to isolate radius.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the implications of missing information, particularly the mass of the block, and how it affects the ability to solve for the radius. Participants express frustration over the circular dependency between radius and velocity in their calculations.

mujadeo
Messages
103
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The coefficient of friction between a certain brass block and a large revolving turntable is µ = 0.18. How far from the axis of rotation can the block be placed before it slides off the turntable if it is rotating at 33 1/3 rev/min?

Homework Equations


how can i do anything with this question without the mass of the block?


The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can still set up the equations describing the situation. Try setting up the equations and just use "m" as a placeholder for mass. The fact that you don't know the mass shouldn't be a problem if you have this problem set up right.
 
Last edited:
how can i get the velocity (to get centrip accel) if i don't know r?
how can i find the right r if i can't get the velocity?
Please help
 
You may not know v directly, but you do know that the angular fequency is 33 and 1/3 rev/min. Can you use this to find the velocity? You must have some work for this problem. At least show me how you set up the problem or something. I'm really not supposed to give you this much help if you don't show work.
 
yes i know that v=2pier/T
i have T as 1.8s

But then I need r to get v. \
But the questions is asking me for the optimal r (so it won't slide off).
??
 
so it seems like a contradiction.
i need r to calcui;llate v, but r is not known
 
also i realize that F= un
so i will likely do something like equate the un = mv^2/r
and then cncel the n and m somehow to find r
 
mujadeo said:
also i realize that F= un
so i will likely do something like equate the un = mv^2/r
and then cncel the n and m somehow to find r

Your on the right track. What force will the normal force be equal to?
 
Last edited:
normal will be same as the mass
 
  • #10
in the opposing direction i mean
 
  • #11
ok so
.18n = mv^2/r
cancel the n and m
.18 = v^2/r

but this is same problem. --i need a value for r in order to calculate v?
 
  • #12
mujadeo said:
normal will be same as the mass

Mass is not a force. I think you mean the normal force will be the same as the weight:

n=mg

So, your line above should read:

.18g=v^2/r

Now, once you know this, you have gotten rid of the m. Now the only problem is that pesky v! If only you had another equation for v in terms of r to plug in there...hint hint.:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #13
well this is tangetial vel right
so vt = wr
please tell me what I'm doing wrong?
you can see by now that i know basically what's going on but I'm just tripping over something really stupid.
 
  • #14
You said the formula you need in post #5.

You can plug in v_t=rw for v, but what about this?

(1)v = \frac{2\pi r}{T}

Since you have already calculated T, why not use this?

If \mu g = \frac{v^2}{r}

(2)Then, v=\sqrt{r\mu g}

So if v = (1) and v = (2)...
 
Last edited:
  • #15
yes but what value for r then??
 
  • #16
see this is the same problem iv been having all along
they ask what's the optimal r, but to find r i need v, and to find v i need a value for r??
 
  • #17
mujadeo said:
yes but what value for r then??

I have edited my above post to be clearer.

You basically have two equations for v. The trick is to equate the two equations, so you are left with just r as an unknown.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
10K