Explaining the Mechanics of Banking a Curve on an Inclined Path

AI Thread Summary
When banking a curve, the normal force can provide the necessary centripetal force for turning, eliminating the need for friction at certain speeds. The weight of the car acts vertically and does not have an x component, which is why it is not projected into x and y components like in inclined plane problems. In an unbanked turn, friction is the primary source of centripetal force since the normal force does not contribute horizontally. Conversely, a banked turn allows the normal force to contribute to the horizontal force required for the turn. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for analyzing vehicle motion on different road types.
ben_d
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
can someone please explain why when banking a curve at an angle so that no friction at all is needed to maintain the car's turning radius , we project the normal into an x and y component and we don't project the weight into an x and y component as we do for problems involving motion over an inclined path ? thanks for any help it will be really appreciated .
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Weight always acts vertically, so it has no x component.

To make the turn, you need some centripetal force (in the x direction). That could be supplied by the normal force or friction or both. If the road is unbanked, the normal force has no horizontal component, so friction is all you have. But if the road is banked, the normal force can supply the horizontal force; for some speeds, you won't need any friction at all to make the turn.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top