MHB Particles on a Wedge Q4: Find Accel & Force

  • Thread starter Thread starter markosheehan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles Wedge
markosheehan
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Q4 A wedge of mass 11 kg is held on the ground
with its base horizontal and smooth faces
inclined at 30° and 45° respectively to the
horizontal.
A 5 kg mass on the face inclined at 30° is
connected to a 7 kg mass on the other face by
a light inextensible string which passes over a
smooth light pulley.
The system is released from rest and the wedge does not move.
Find (i) the acceleration of the particles
(ii) the vertical force exerted on the ground.

i have the marking scheme to this question. here is the link http://thephysicsteacher.ie/Exam%20M...hemes/2015.pdf. it is question 6 part b. i don't understand how they work it out could someone explain it to me. first of all they use a for acceleration. what acceleration does this stand for the particle or the wedge. and if it stands for the particle why did they not resolve the acceleration parallel and perpindicular to the plane. why did they only use one acceleration . i learned to do these questions by always looking at both the acceleration of the particle and the wedge
markosheehan is online now Report Post
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
markosheehan said:
Q4 A wedge of mass 11 kg is held on the ground
with its base horizontal and smooth faces
inclined at 30° and 45° respectively to the
horizontal.
A 5 kg mass on the face inclined at 30° is
connected to a 7 kg mass on the other face by
a light inextensible string which passes over a
smooth light pulley.
The system is released from rest and the wedge does not move.
Find (i) the acceleration of the particles
(ii) the vertical force exerted on the ground.

i have the marking scheme to this question. here is the link http://thephysicsteacher.ie/Exam%20M...hemes/2015.pdf. it is question 6 part b. i don't understand how they work it out could someone explain it to me. first of all they use a for acceleration. what acceleration does this stand for the particle or the wedge. and if it stands for the particle why did they not resolve the acceleration parallel and perpindicular to the plane. why did they only use one acceleration . i learned to do these questions by always looking at both the acceleration of the particle and the wedge

Hi markosheehan!

I'm afraid your link does not work, so I can't comment on the marking scheme.

I can already say that since it says "the wedge does not move", $a$ won't refer to the wedge.
Instead $a$ would be the magnitude of the acceleration of one of the masses (or particles), which is the same as the acceleration on the other mass, since they're connected by an inextensible string.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top