Rolling in a cone, normal force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the normal force exerted by a cone and its components. The initial confusion stemmed from incorrectly calculating the vertical component of the normal force, with one participant mistakenly using N/sinθ instead of the correct N*sinθ. The clarification emphasized that when decomposing forces, the perpendicular component cannot exceed the actual force's magnitude. Participants highlighted the importance of visualizing the weight as the hypotenuse of a triangle to derive the correct expression. The thread concludes with a recognition of the resolution of the initial doubt, questioning the need to delete the discussion.
KEVmathematics
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I have a small problem with this question. In this problem, the cone exerts a normal force. This force, should be perpendicular to the inside surface of the cone. In equating the vertical forces, I need the vertical component of this normal force. I would draw this force perpendicular to the surface, and then using the angle θ, I would get a force of N/sinθ. But in the book, it says that it should be N*sinθ. What am I doing wrong here?
 

Attachments

  • rolling.jpg
    rolling.jpg
    21.4 KB · Views: 530
Physics news on Phys.org
Suddenly, I get it. Never mind! I can't find how to delete this thread.
 
You are decomposing the weight into its components which will be parallel and perpendicular to the inner surface of the cone. How can the perpendicular component have a magnitude greater than the actual force? Whenever you split a force at any angle, you get a value between 0 and the magnitude of the force depending upon the angle. Make the weight the hypotenuse of the triangle and see what expression you get.
 
Last edited:
KEVmathematics said:
Suddenly, I get it. Never mind! I can't find how to delete this thread.
As far as I'm aware, that is not possible. And why delete proof that you resolved your own doubt?
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top