Question about net force/acceleration/constant velocity

  • Thread starter Thread starter phosgenic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Net Velocity
AI Thread Summary
An object can maintain constant velocity when the net force acting on it is zero, which occurs when all applied forces are balanced, such as a puck sliding on frictionless ice. In scenarios where forces are not equal to zero, like pushing a puck on snowy ice, the applied force must exceed friction for the puck to move, resulting in a net force that is not zero and causing acceleration. Once the applied force equals the kinetic friction, the puck can reach a constant velocity. Additionally, an object can have constant speed while changing direction, such as a car turning, which involves centripetal acceleration even if speed remains constant. Understanding these principles clarifies how Newton's laws apply in various contexts.
phosgenic
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I read in my textbook that an object can have constant velocity when net force and acceleration are equal to 0. For an example like a puck on frictionless ice that continues to move after it has had a force applied to it that is all good and fine, I understand that inertia keeps the puck moving.

I am wondering how in an example similar to the above, the object can have constant velocity and net force can be equal to 0, with horizontally applied forces that are NOT equal to 0. For example, a puck being pushed by a hockey stick on some snowy ice, or me pushing a book across a table. Doesn't the applied force from the hockey stick or the force from my hand have to be greater than the force of friction from the ice or the table for the puck or book to move? if this is true, then net force is not equal to 0, yet the puck/book still has constant velocity and now all of Newton's principles make no sense to me. I'm hoping someone can clarify this/these concept(s).

Thanks!

EDIT: I'll add one more question here, how would you calculate (not specifically, just conceptually) the acceleration of an object that has constant speed but changing direction only?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF,

phosgenic said:
I read in my textbook that an object can have constant velocity when net force and acceleration are equal to 0. For an example like a puck on frictionless ice that continues to move after it has had a force applied to it that is all good and fine, I understand that inertia keeps the puck moving.

I am wondering how in an example similar to the above, the object can have constant velocity and net force can be equal to 0, with horizontally applied forces that are NOT equal to 0. For example, a puck being pushed by a hockey stick on some snowy ice, or me pushing a book across a table. Doesn't the applied force from the hockey stick or the force from my hand have to be greater than the force of friction from the ice or the table for the puck or book to move? if this is true, then net force is not equal to 0, yet the puck/book still has constant velocity and now all of Newton's principles make no sense to me. I'm hoping someone can clarify this/these concept(s).

Thanks!

EDIT: I'll add one more question here, how would you calculate (not specifically, just conceptually) the acceleration of an object that has constant speed but changing direction only?

It seems like your question is of the form, "if I deliberately envision a scenario where Newton's laws are violated, then I find that Newton's laws aren't obeyed. What's going on?" I'm not being facetious here. I just think that contradiction is there because you put it there.

If the puck has a non-zero net force acting on it, then it will have a non-zero acceleration. That's all there is to it.
 
phosgenic said:
For example, a puck being pushed by a hockey stick on some snowy ice, or me pushing a book across a table. Doesn't the applied force from the hockey stick or the force from my hand have to be greater than the force of friction from the ice or the table for the puck or book to move?
Static friction has to be overcome to get the puck to initially move, and then kinetic (sliding) friction is involved. The puck will accelerate until the force is reduced to match kinetic friction.

phosgenic said:
I'll add one more question here, how would you calculate (not specifically, just conceptually) the acceleration of an object that has constant speed but changing direction only?
The math can be complex, but one example where this is commonly done is a car making maneuvers (turns) while at constant speed. The path can be just about any shape (spiral, parabola, hypebola, ellipse, circle, sine wave, ...) that doesn't have sharp inflection points (corners with a radius of 0).
 
Last edited:
rcgldr said:
Static friction has to be overcome to get the puck to initially move, and then kinetic (sliding) friction is involved. The puck will accelerate until the force is reduced to match kinetic friction.

The math can be complex, but one example where this is commonly done is a car making maneuvers (turns) while at constant speed. The path can be just about any shape (spiral, parabola, hypebola, ellipse, circle, sine wave, ...) that doesn't have sharp inflection points (corners with a radius of 0).

Good answer, thanks. And no, I wasn't trying to envision a scenario to violate Newton's laws. In the situation I presented they aren't violated, I just couldn't understand how they were operating in that context, as the examples that are given in my textbook/lectures are similar to the first example I gave.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
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