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: 533
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?
 

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Mechanics of Rolling and Striking Cones
Replies
6
Views
1K
Understanding Circular Motion in a Cone: Solving for Radius and Normal Force
Replies
9
Views
6K
B What is the Absolute Value of the Normal force on a block on this wedge?
Replies
3
Views
1K
I Normal force and details of the Earth holding up an object
Replies
12
Views
2K
I Why don't we "fly up" in an accelerating elevator?
Replies
11
Views
3K
B How to characterize a rubber ball moving horizontally and bouncing off of a vertical wall?
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Normal Force Discrepancy for Wedge Vs. Ramp
Replies
9
Views
3K
I If frictional force in system is <= us*N then there is no slipping
Replies
7
Views
2K
B Static friction needed for rolling without slipping
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Questions about momentum and force as well as normal force/friction
Replies
35
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top