Sliding on Sphere with Friction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a physics problem involving snowboarders sliding down a spherical mountain using either High Friction Wax A or Low Friction Wax B. Contestant Matt Curcio correctly chose High Friction Wax A, as it allows for more potential energy to be dissipated as friction, resulting in a slower descent and reducing the likelihood of taking flight. The equations discussed include energy conservation and forces acting on the snowboarder, specifically the normal force and frictional force, which are critical in determining the optimal choice of wax.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with concepts of potential and kinetic energy
  • Knowledge of friction coefficients and their impact on motion
  • Basic calculus for solving integrals and derivatives in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the effects of friction on motion using "Physics of Sliding Objects" resources
  • Learn about energy conservation principles in "Introduction to Classical Mechanics" textbooks
  • Explore the role of normal force in circular motion with "Dynamics of Rigid Bodies" materials
  • Investigate the mathematical modeling of motion on curved surfaces through "Calculus-Based Physics" courses
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for physics students, educators, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of motion on curved surfaces, particularly in the context of sports physics and energy conservation principles.

buttermellow7
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Snowboarders, standing at the top of a spherical mountain, hold a contest to see who can slide farthest down the mountain before taking flight. Contestants must decide whether to use High Friction Wax A or Low Friction Wax B. "M-dog" Matt Curcio was one of the contestants, and, as a recent graduate of this department, made the correct choice. Which did he choose, and why?


Homework Equations


[tex]1/2mv^2-\int Fdx=mgh[/tex]
(would we need to take into account rotational kinetic energy? In this case, the factor of 1/2 would disappear.)
[tex]F_\mu=\mu_kF_N[/tex]
[tex]\sum F=ma=mv^2/R[/tex]
[tex]h=R\cos(\theta)[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution


I think qualitatively you would want the high friction wax, because then more of your potential energy would be lost due to friction and thus not converted into kinetic energy. You would be going more slowly, so you wouldn't fly off the mountain as quickly (this last part I only feel instinctively is true; I'm having trouble proving it). A higher coefficient of friction would also mean a smaller normal force, and thus less outward force on the snowboarder.

However, when I try and do the math to prove it, I think I get a little lost. I know that we're looking for the place where the normal force is 0. So I try
[tex]F_\mu+F_g+F_N=mv^2/R[/tex]
[tex](\mu_k+1)F_N+mg\cos\theta=mv^2/R[/tex]
[tex]0=\frac{(mv^2/R-mg\cos\theta)}{(\mu_k+1)}[/tex]
So I really don't know what to do with the velocity factor. Can anyone help me work this all the way through? Am I even approaching it the right way? I'm supposed to be able to do this question in under nine minutes, so I think there's probably a quicker way.
 
Physics news on Phys.org

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K