Object sliding down a block on a scale

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
10 replies · 10K views
Lord Anoobis
Messages
131
Reaction score
22

Homework Statement


A 200g hamster sits on an 800 g wedge shaped block which in turn rests on a spring scale. An extra fine lubricating oil is sprayed on the top surface of the block, rendering it entirely frictionless, causing the hamster to slide down. Friction between the block and the scale is large enough that the block does not slip on the scale. What does the scale read as the hamster slides down?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


The hamster accelerates down the block with a = gsin##\theta##
The vertical component of this acceleration is:

ay = gsin2##\theta##

So the downward force exerted by the hamster on the block and thus onto the scale is

Fhamster = may

I added this to the weight of the block and ended up with

Reading = Mg + mgsin2##\theta##
Reading = (0.800)(9.8) + (0.200)(9.8)sin240o
Reading = 8.650N

Which is incorrect. I feel that I'm on the right track but I've missed some critical detail. Where did I go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
haruspex said:
Try a special case. Suppose theta is zero. What do you get for the force the hamster exerts on the block?
In that case it would simply be ##mg##
 
haruspex said:
Yes, of course it should be, but is that what you get from your mg sin2θ formula?
Indeed not. I can see that mgcos2##\theta## is correct. What I don't see is how to arrive at that.
 
Lord Anoobis said:
Indeed not. I can see that mgcos2##\theta## is correct. What I don't see is how to arrive at that.
Wait.
 
haruspex said:
Yes, of course it should be, but is that what you get from your mg sin2θ formula?
The vertical component of the force the hamster exerts on the block is

F = mgcos2##\theta##

Add this to the weight of the block and there we go.
 
haruspex said:
Ok. All good now?
Almost. I would like to look at this a little closer. My initial approach seemed sensible, and I'm not quite sure why it did not work. Logically, that is.
 
Lord Anoobis said:
Almost. I would like to look at this a little closer. My initial approach seemed sensible, and I'm not quite sure why it did not work. Logically, that is.
It's because you took the downward acceleration as indicative of the downward force exerted. If you write out the usual ##\Sigma F = ma## equation you'll find you should have negated it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Anoobis
haruspex said:
It's because you took the downward acceleration as indicative of the downward force exerted. If you write out the usual ##\Sigma F = ma## equation you'll find you should have negated it.
Yes, I see that now. I noticed that subtracting that force from the total weight yielded the correct answer but the reason behind it never clicked. Thanks a whole lot.