Nonconservative work kinetic friction problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a self-created physics problem involving two objects, A and B, sliding against each other with kinetic friction. The author notes that the only forces acting on the objects are the normal forces and the kinetic friction, leading to a decrease in their relative speed. The calculation of nonconservative work done by friction results in an unexpected conclusion that the masses of both objects must be equal, which is deemed absurd. The author seeks assistance in identifying the error in this reasoning, particularly by analyzing the scenario from an inertial frame. The realization that the objects are in non-inertial frames due to their acceleration is highlighted as a key insight.
inkliing
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
This isn't homework. I'm reviewing physics after many years of neglect. As with most of my posts, I made this problem up.

Let object A have mass m_A and object B have mass m_B. One of A's surfaces is flat, as is one of B's. These flat surfaces are in contact and slide relative to each other in a straight line for a distance, x, experiencing kinetic friction. The kinetic friction, of magnitude f, is constant and is the only force acting on A or B in the direction of motion, and the only other forces acting on A and B are the normal forces pressing the surfaces together. The normal forces are assumed to be equal and opposite, so that the only acceleration of the objects is in the direction of friction. No net force acts on the center of mass.

During a finite time interval, the speed of each surface relative to the other decreases from v_i to v_f due to friction. The nonconservative work done by each surface on the other is W_{noncons} = -fx since each surface experiences the same displacement and the magnitude of the frictional force exerted by each surface on the other is the same since the two frictional forces comprise a force/reaction force pair.

Therefore the change in kinetic energy of A, \Delta K_A as seen from B's restframe is equal to the change in kinetic energy of B, \Delta K_B, as seen from A's restframe, since we are assuming that no other forces accelerate the objects.

Therefore \frac{1}{2}m_A v_{f}^{2} - \frac{1}{2}m_A v_{i}^{2} = \Delta K_A = \Delta K_B = \frac{1}{2}m_B v_{f}^{2} - \frac{1}{2}m_B v_{i}^{2} \Rightarrow m_A = m_B, an absurd result.

Something's wrong and it's driving me crazy! Please help me find the error in this reasoning, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try analyzing things from an inertial frame. Since the objects are accelerating, their rest frames are non-inertial.
 
Thank you! It was staring me in the face.
 
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...
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?
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...
Back
Top