Repose Angle: Why Doesn't Matter Float?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nirav Chavda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Float
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of repose angle and the behavior of a mass on an inclined plane, particularly why the mass does not float but instead slides down with constant speed. Participants explore the balance of forces acting on the mass, including gravitational and frictional forces, and the implications of these forces on motion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why a mass on an inclined plane does not float, suggesting it should remain still or move randomly if net forces are zero.
  • Another participant clarifies that if static friction balances the component of weight acting down the plane, the mass will remain at rest.
  • Some participants argue that once the mass starts sliding, it does so with constant speed due to kinetic friction, which is less than static friction.
  • There is a discussion about the role of normal force, with some participants suggesting it can be neglected while others emphasize its importance in determining frictional force.
  • One participant posits that at the repose angle, gravitational and frictional forces are balanced, leading to no acceleration.
  • Another participant points out that a slight disturbance can lead to a transition from static to kinetic friction, causing the mass to accelerate down the plane.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of normal force and the conditions under which the mass will slide or remain at rest. There is no consensus on whether the mass can be considered to float or the implications of the forces involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the balance of forces without resolving the complexities of how these forces interact under different conditions, such as static versus kinetic friction and the effects of slight disturbances.

  • #31
Not with the constant velocity but with acceleration. Youuuuuuuuu can calculate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Doc Al said:
Start with the mass resting on the incline at some angle less than the limiting angle. Slowly increase the angle, until it just starts to move. When it starts sliding, kinetic friction (which is generally less than the static friction) takes over and there is a net force downward.


you say the body will have net force downward then it'll accelerate which contradicts the fact that it moves down with CONSTANT SPEED which cannot happen if net force ACTS.
 
  • #33
mukundpa said:
Not with the constant velocity but with acceleration. Youuuuuuuuu can calculate it.

this case can be thought to be similar to the body on a horizontal plane.
there when force just equal to the static force is applied the body starts moving but with zero acceleration
 
  • #34
Nirav Chavda said:
let me make it clear for you... THE BODY IS OBSERVED TO MOVE DOWNWARDS WITH CONSTANT VELOCITY-- THATS A FACT not my THOUGHT .
Have you seen this "fact" with your own eyes? Do you have a reference?

I'm doing the "experiment" right now in my office, with an eraser and a clipboard. Sure looks like accelerated motion to me. :wink:

Of course, if you are able to keep the speed very small (with tiny adjustments of angle), it would not surprise me to see the friction changing back and forth from static to kinetic. (The typical models of friction are only approximate.)
 
  • #35
Nirav Chavda said:
this case can be thought to be similar to the body on a horizontal plane.
there when force just equal to the static force is applied the body starts moving but with zero acceleration
How do you start moving with zero acceleration?
 
  • #36
Doc Al said:
How do you start moving with zero acceleration?

brother .. you've got an excellent point there but I'm still uncontent. i'll try get to the main core just wait..
 
  • #37
thank you very much you've solved my problem.
the simple answer to this was that the body will accelerate down due to some smallest inevitable disturbance(at quantum level) and this would change the Static F. to kinetic F. which is lesser. and so new net force acting downwards will be produced resulting in downward motion.

thankyou again for spending your working :wink: hours for helping me out!
meet you at some other forum!
 
  • #38
I am also having difficultly following the question. If the object is initially not moving how can it be also moveing at a constant speed? Speed is 0. How can it be on a frictionless incline (mentioned air frictionless) and be suspended? I need help in visuallizing this. Sorry
 
  • #39
Nirav Chavda said:
the simple answer to this was that the body will accelerate down due to some smallest inevitable disturbance(at quantum level) and this would change the Static F. to kinetic F. which is lesser. and so new net force acting downwards will be produced resulting in downward motion.

Oy vey!

And all you foolish people thought quantum effects cannot manifest themselves clearly at the macroscopic level!

Zz.
 
  • #40
Oy vey! This has got to be one of the most innane threads I've ever seen here - and this from a guy who put a lot of energy into a 9/11 conspiracy thread! I'm sooo glad I didn't see this thread this morning.

Silly ZZ - statements of facts are things I make and you accept...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K