Questions on Forces: How Come \mu_s \tan{\theta} > 1?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fterh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forces
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the condition \mu_s \tan{\theta} > 1 in the context of forces, specifically regarding the normal force N2. Participants clarify that for the equality N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta}) + \frac{1}{2}mg = 0 to hold, the term N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta}) must be negative, implying \mu_s \tan{\theta} must exceed 1. There is confusion about the role of N2, which is considered a positive force, leading to the conclusion that if the first term is negative, it must be less than zero. The conversation emphasizes the mathematical consistency of these statements in the context of force equilibrium. Understanding these relationships is crucial for solving related physics problems.
fterh
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Some background information: I'm doing some reading up for PhO (so it's beyond what I'm supposed to learn), and so I'll post all my questions here (regarding both concepts and actual practice questions). Sorry if you feel there is a lack of effort on my part, but sometimes I'm really lost and don't know where to start.

1) http://imgur.com/3Wyp7

My question: How come for the equality to hold, \mu_s \tan{\theta} > 1? I can't get the link. And since we don't know what is N2 and N2 cannot be eliminated from the equation, how come there is no mention of N2 after the statement "For the equality to hold,"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fterh said:
My question: How come for the equality to hold, \mu_s \tan{\theta} > 1? I can't get the link. And since we don't know what is N2 and N2 cannot be eliminated from the equation, how come there is no mention of N2 after the statement "For the equality to hold,"?
First
\ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})+\frac{1}{2}mg=0
then
\ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})<0
therefore:
\mu_s \tan{\theta} > 1.
There is no mention of N2 since in the equation it N2 refers to the norm of the force and is a positive number.
 
bp_psy said:
First
\ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})+\frac{1}{2}mg=0
then
\ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})<0
therefore:
\mu_s \tan{\theta} > 1.
There is no mention of N2 since in the equation it N2 refers to the norm of the force and is a positive number.

But how come \ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})<0?

Shouldn't it be: N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta}) = -\frac{1}{2}mg?
 
fterh said:
But how come \ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})<0?

Shouldn't it be: N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta}) = -\frac{1}{2}mg?

I haven't read the problem, but it seems to me that the two quoted statements above are completely consistent with each other. Both are true.
 
cepheid said:
I haven't read the problem, but it seems to me that the two quoted statements above are completely consistent with each other. Both are true.

Can you explain how you arrived at that?
 
fterh said:
Can you explain how you arrived at that?

If something is negative, then it is also < 0.
 
fterh said:
But how come \ N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta})&lt;0?

Shouldn't it be: N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta}) = -\frac{1}{2}mg?
I will say the same thing that cepheid has been trying to point out differently.

We agree that N_2(1-\mu_s \tan{\theta}) +\frac{1}{2}mg=0
The second term in the above sum is positive. The only way that the two can add up to give zero is if the first term in the sum is negative.
 
Back
Top