Terminal Velocity and Mass Relationship in a Proportionality Argument

In summary, the conversation discusses the relationship between terminal velocity and the mass of an object sliding down a ramp with drag and friction forces. Using Newton's Second Law, it is determined that terminal velocity is proportional to the mass of the object to the power of 1/6. However, this assumption relies on the proportionality constants for the drag and friction forces being the same, which may not be the case. Additionally, the assumption that volume is proportional to mass is made in the discussion.
  • #1
opticaltempest
135
0

Homework Statement



Assume a box is sliding down a ramp with an incline of [tex]\theta[/tex] radians and reaches terminal velocity before arriving at the bottom of the ramp. Assume that the drag force caused by the air is proportional to [tex]Sv^2[/tex], where [tex]S[/tex] is the cross sectional area perpendicular to the direction of motion and [tex]v[/tex] is the speed. Further assume that the sliding friction between the object and the ramp is proportional to the normal weight of the object. Determine the relationship between the terminal velocity and the mass of the object.

The Attempt at a Solution



The forces acting on the box will be the drag force [tex]F_d[/tex] acting in the negative direction, the sliding friction [tex]F_s[/tex] acting in the negative direction, and the component of gravity that is parallel to the surface of the ramp [tex]F_g_x[/tex] acting in the positive direction. At terminal velocity, the box is not accelerating. Using Newton's Second Law for the net force acting on the box, we have

[tex] -F_s-F_d+F_g_x=0 [/tex] (1)

Now, [tex]F_s \propto w [/tex] and [tex]w \propto m[/tex] so

[tex]F_s \propto m[/tex]

where [tex]w[/tex] is the normal weight of the box and [tex]m[/tex] is the mass of the box.

The same argument can be made for [tex]F_g_x[/tex]. So

[tex]F_g_x \propto m[/tex].

For [tex]F_d[/tex], note that [tex]S \propto L^2 [/tex] and [tex]V \propto L^3 [/tex],

where [tex]L[/tex] is length and [tex]V[/tex] is volume.

So [tex]L\propto S^{\frac{1}{2}} \propto V^{\frac{1}{3}}[/tex].

This implies that [tex]S \propto V^{\frac{2}{3}}[/tex].

Since volume [tex]V[/tex] is proportional to mass [tex]m[/tex], we have

[tex]S \propto m^{\frac{2}{3}}[/tex].

Assuming we are at terminal velocity, [tex]v=v_T[/tex].

Now going back to (1), we have

[tex] -F_s-F_d+F_g_x=0 [/tex]

[tex]-m-m^{\frac{2}{3}}v^2_{T}+m \propto 0 [/tex]

[tex]m^{\frac{2}{3}}v^2_{T} \propto 0[/tex] (2)

The proportionality in (2) doesn't make sense. Where am I going wrong? Do I need to modify

[tex]F_g_x \propto m[/tex] to be [tex]F_g_x \propto \sin{(\theta)}m[/tex].?Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The forum is giving me a "Page Not Found" when I try to post my reply. I'll try PMing it to you...

...OK, the system doesn't like something about my post in PM as well. Write me and I'll discuss it with you there.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
If you have an expression with multiple terms:

[tex] -F_s-F_d+F_g_x [/tex]

You can't replace each term with values proportional to each term:

[tex]-m-m^{\frac{2}{3}}v^2_{T}+m [/tex]

This is because each term has a different (hidden) constant. Try doing the problem with equalities rather than proportions, remembering to show the constant in each term. I think you'll see the mistake then.

Another thing is that you are making certain assumptions about the problem that could likely be wrong. For example, it doesn't say that the volume is proportional to the mass. Although it is rather unrealistic that the dynamic friction is unrelated to the velocity, but I guess we are to assume that.
 
  • #4
Fleem, I think I see the point you are making.

Let [tex]F_s=Km[/tex],

[tex]F_g_x=Rm[/tex], and

[tex]F_d=Qm^{\frac{2}{3}} v_{t}^{2}[/tex],

where K, Q, and R are some contants.

Equation (1) from my first post becomes

[tex] -Km-Qm^{\frac{2}{3}}v^{2}_{t}+Rm=0[/tex]

[tex] \implies -Qm^{\frac{2}{3}}v^{2}_{t}=m(K-R)[/tex]

[tex] \implies v^{2}_{t}=\frac{m(K-R)}{m^{\frac{2}{3}}(-Q)}[/tex]

[tex] \implies v = \sqrt{\frac{K-R}{-Q}}\sqrt{m^{\frac{1}{3}}}[/tex]

[tex] \implies v = \sqrt{\frac{K-R}{Q}}m^{\frac{1}{6}}[/tex]

Let [tex]T=\sqrt{\frac{K-R}{Q}}[/tex]. So,

[tex] v = Tm^{\frac{1}{6}}[/tex]

[tex] \implies v \propto m^{\frac{1}{6}} [/tex].

So by replacing each term with what it was proportional to, I was assuming that all the proportionality constants were the same, which they might not be. Right?

I should also say that I am assuming that volume is proportional to mass. I guess a better assumption would be to assume some constant uniform density for all boxes. From that assumption, volume would be proportional to mass. Right? The book makes the assumption that volume is proportional to mass.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Just glanced over the algebra but, yep, that's the idea.
 

What is the Proportionality Argument?

The Proportionality Argument is a logical argument that states that if two things are proportional, then changing one will result in a corresponding change in the other. It is commonly used in scientific research to establish causal relationships between variables.

How is the Proportionality Argument used in science?

In science, the Proportionality Argument is used to establish a relationship between two variables, where a change in one variable is expected to result in a proportional change in the other variable. This allows researchers to make predictions and test hypotheses about the effects of different factors on a particular phenomenon.

What are the limitations of the Proportionality Argument?

The Proportionality Argument can only establish a correlation between two variables, but it cannot prove causation. There may be other factors at play that are causing the observed changes, and it is important for scientists to consider all potential variables that could influence the results.

How do scientists test the Proportionality Argument?

Scientists use statistical analysis and experimental design to test the Proportionality Argument. By controlling for other variables and conducting experiments, they can determine the strength and significance of the relationship between two variables and establish whether or not the changes are truly proportional.

Can the Proportionality Argument be applied to all scientific research?

No, the Proportionality Argument is not applicable to all scientific research. It is most commonly used in quantitative studies that involve numerical data and can be measured and compared. In qualitative research, where data may be more subjective, it may not be appropriate to use the Proportionality Argument.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
306
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
3
Replies
97
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
692
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
869
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
10
Replies
335
Views
8K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
216
Back
Top