Object exerts an opposing force of equal magnitude

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Newton's third law of motion, specifically addressing the concept of action and reaction forces when pushing objects. Participants explore the implications of these forces in different scenarios, such as pushing a box versus pushing against a wall, and the role of friction in motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the relationship between the forces exerted by the person and the box, questioning how these forces interact and affect motion. There are discussions about the role of friction and the net force required for movement, as well as the implications of pushing against different surfaces.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored regarding the mechanics of force and motion. Some participants provide insights into the conditions necessary for movement, while others question the assumptions about the forces involved. Guidance is offered on the relationship between static and kinetic friction in the context of the forces applied.

Contextual Notes

Participants are considering different scenarios involving friction and the forces applied, with some expressing uncertainty about the definitions and implications of these forces. There is mention of specific values for normal force and horizontal force in relation to finding coefficients of friction, indicating a focus on practical applications of the concepts discussed.

  • #31
Ukitake Jyuushirou said:
since the weight of the sled is - 196N downwards and if there are no vertical forces, the Fn should be + 196 N but since the pull supplies a 40 N positive force, then the Fn will be 156

correct?
For your own sake:
Gain familiarity and practice with equation solving by doing this with standard mathematical formalism!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I think he will learn mathematical formalism in due time :smile:

Yes, your value for normal force is correct .
 
  • #33
arildno said:
For your own sake:
Gain familiarity and practice with equation solving by doing this with standard mathematical formalism!
wat is mathematical formalism? pardon me as i have not been doing physics in a long time and the last time i did physics was really simple and rudimentary physics. nothing beyond blind application of F = ma and the likes...

i'm pretty much trying to figure out how to study physics correctly :redface:
 
  • #34
Ukitake Jyuushirou said:
since the weight of the sled is - 196N downwards and if there are no vertical forces, the Fn should be + 196 N but since the pull supplies a 40 N positive force, then the Fn will be 156

correct?
Yes, but please do not try to do these calculations in your head! Do as arildno (and I) suggests: Write the equation for vertical equilibrium. Then solve the equation.

When you've done it formally (and correctly) a zillion times, then you can take shortcuts. :wink:
 
  • #35
Doc Al said:
Yes, but please do not try to do these calculations in your head! Do as arildno (and I) suggests: Write the equation for vertical equilibrium. Then solve the equation.

When you've done it formally (and correctly) a zillion times, then you can take shortcuts. :wink:
ok got it :smile::smile:

w=mg
196=20x9.8

Fn = 196 (no vertical force)

196-40 = 156 (force of 40N in +y-component)
Fn = 156
 
  • #36
now i have to solve for the coefficient of kinetic friction. kinetic friction force is supposed to be proportional to the Fn. but from wat is given, how do i work out the friction force?
 
  • #37
What is the constant of proportionality in the equation relating kinetic frictional force and normal force ?
What are the conditions for horizontal equilibrium ?
As Doc Al suggested, write down the math step by step .
 
  • #38
frictional force is related to the Fn.

Fn = 156, Fx = 69.2. coefficient of friction is 69.2 divided by 156 = 0.44

am i correct?
 
  • #39
Ukitake Jyuushirou said:
w=mg
196=20x9.8

Fn = 196 (no vertical force)

196-40 = 156 (force of 40N in +y-component)
Fn = 156
Good. But just for the record, here's how I would do it:
(Sum of the forces in the vertical direction) = +Fn -mg +80sin(30) = 0

That's the equation for vertical equilibrium. Solving it (trivial, yes) gives:
Fn = mg - 80sin(30)

Now do the same for horizontal forces.
 
  • #40
Doc Al said:
Good. But just for the record, here's how I would do it:
(Sum of the forces in the vertical direction) = +Fn -mg +80sin(30) = 0

That's the equation for vertical equilibrium. Solving it (trivial, yes) gives:
Fn = mg - 80sin(30)

Now do the same for horizontal forces.
using ur formula


Fx = 80cos30 = 69.2
 
  • #41
OK. Again, the way I would do it is:
(Sum of the forces in the horizontal direction) = -Ff +80cos(30) = 0

Solving gives: Ff = 80cos(30)

(The reason for sticking to a systematic approach is: (1) It drives home the key physics principles & (2) It allows you to solve much harder problems.)

Now you can apply the other relationship you know about kinetic friction to solve for \mu_k systematically.
 
  • #42
Doc Al said:
OK. Again, the way I would do it is:
(Sum of the forces in the horizontal direction) = -Ff +80cos(30) = 0

Solving gives: Ff = 80cos(30)

(The reason for sticking to a systematic approach is: (1) It drives home the key physics principles & (2) It allows you to solve much harder problems.)

Now you can apply the other relationship you know about kinetic friction to solve for \mu_k systematically.
yes ur right. :smile: i'd try to use this approach for my other qns

frictional force is related to the Fn.

Fn = 156, Fx = 69.2. coefficient of friction is 69.2 divided by 156 = 0.44

am i correct?
 
  • #43
Looks good. I'd write it this way. The key relationship for kinetic friction is:
F_f = \mu_k F_n

thus:
\mu_k = F_f /F_n

then just plug in the numbers
 
  • #44
whew...one question down...many many more to go... thanks for everyone's help and advice :smile:
 
  • #45
I think we beat that one to death! :smile:
 
  • #46
We sure did :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
926
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K