Not intuitive-friction causes motion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter samtouchdown
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion
AI Thread Summary
Friction plays a crucial role in the acceleration of mass 2, which rests on mass 1 being pulled by a rope. While friction typically opposes motion, in this scenario, it allows mass 2 to accelerate along with mass 1, preventing it from falling off. The key is understanding that the acceleration is relative; mass 2 appears at rest on mass 1 but is accelerating with respect to the ground. This concept is similar to a person standing in a moving truck, where static friction is necessary to keep the load from sliding off. Ultimately, the net force acting on mass 2 is provided entirely by static friction, enabling it to move in sync with mass 1.
samtouchdown
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Not intuitive--friction causes motion?

Hi. I'm having difficulty conceptualizing this situation:

Consider two objects, mass 1 and mass 2. Mass 2 is on mass 1 and mass 1 is being pulled by a rope. There is a frictional force between mass 1 and mass 2, but none between mass 2 and the surface. Now my confusions/questions are as follows:

How is the acceleration of mass 2 caused by the frictional force between the two objects? It is known that friction retards motion, so how does this force supposedly help object 2 accelerate? It would be appreciated if you can help me visualize/provide intuition for this situation (how friction causes acceleration, that is).
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Imagine standing on the bed of a truck with an unsecured load, just as it starts to accelerate. What will happen to the load? Now think about what the looks like from the ground.

Mass 1 is the truck; mass 2 is the load. Does that help?
 


Ibix said:
Imagine standing on the bed of a truck with an unsecured load, just as it starts to accelerate. What will happen to the load? Now think about what the looks like from the ground.

Mass 1 is the truck; mass 2 is the load. Does that help?
Well, the unsecured load will fall off the truck. So, to keep the the object on the accelerating truck, we would need friction. So, the friction keeps the object "accelerating" with the truck. I think what's confusing me is how it is accelerating; specifically, it is at rest on the truck but with respect to the ground, it is accelerating. So, is the free body diagram and acceleration with respect to the ground or the truck itself? Thanks in advance.
 


Always with respect to the ground when using Newton 2 and free body diagrams with real forces.
 


This is more of a relative velocity question. As you said, with respect to the bottom mass, the top mass is not moving. The idea is the same as you driving inside a car. The car is moving, and with respect to the car, you are not moving. However, with respect to the ground the car is moving, so you must be moving, since you are moving at the same speed as the car. Similarly, because the bottom mass moves, the top mass must also move with respect to the ground. Of course, there is no net force technically being applied on the top mass, so the actual net force on it is solely provided by the static friction, not the kinetic friction. There is no external force on the top mass, so the net force is solely given by the static friction. That should answer your question.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top