Trouble interpreting fictitious forces for block on wedge problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on solving a block on wedge problem using fictitious forces in a non-inertial frame where the wedge is considered fixed. The participant is confused about calculating the normal force N1 and the block's acceleration down the incline, as they believe N1 should equal mgcosα in both frames. However, they are reminded that fictitious forces must also be accounted for in the non-inertial frame, which alters the dynamics. To find N1, they are advised to express the wedge's acceleration and write force equations for the block in the wedge's accelerating frame. Understanding the impact of fictitious forces is crucial for correctly solving the problem.
shadowplay
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement





This is a standard block on wedge problem - we have an incline of angle \alpha, a block of mass m on wedge of mass M. The block is released from the inclined surface. The wedge is not fixed and can accelerate. The question is typical - find the horizontal accelerations of the block and wedge a1 and a2 respectively, and the normal foces N1 and N2 (in terms of the masses the angles and g and stuff). I know this is a standard problem and I in fact know how to solve it using the constraint invoking the geometry of the incline.

However, I really want to do this problem using fictious forces. I want to use a reference frame in which the wedge is fixed.

Homework Equations



Let inertial frame be S, accelerated one be S' (not rotated).

ma = F + Ffictitious

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought the above equation wold make this problem fall out very quickly using the above equation, because the acceleration of the wedge with respect to the inertial frame (and hence the fictitious force) is easy to calculate once we know the normal force N1.

Now, in the frame fixed with respect to the wedge, I thought we would have N1=mgcos\alpha (and consequently an acceleration of the block down the incline of gsin\alpha). But this isn't the case, right? Why not, though? And how would we solve for N1 using our fictitious force framework?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
shadowplay said:
Now, in the frame fixed with respect to the wedge, I thought we would have N1=mgcos\alpha (and consequently an acceleration of the block down the incline of gsin\alpha). But this isn't the case, right? Why not, though? And how would we solve for N1 using our fictitious force framework?

It is not so because the fictitious force is also acting. So you should take that into account as well. Show complete working preferably with a diagram so we could tell where you are wrong.
 
Well I haven't been able to use fictitious forces, so there is no point in me writing down the working out. Fictitious forces act IN addition to the forces present in inertial frames, like N1. Shouldn't N1 have the same value in the inertial frame and the frame in which the block is fixed? So how do we go about finding N1 (without solving the problem entirely in the inertial frame, which defeats the entire point/advantage of using the noninertial frame of reference)?
 
shadowplay said:
Shouldn't N1 have the same value in the inertial frame and the frame in which the block is fixed?
It does; the value of a 'real' force such as N does not depend on the reference frame. But that value is different from what it would be if the wedge were fixed. (Which is an entirely different problem.)
So how do we go about finding N1 (without solving the problem entirely in the inertial frame, which defeats the entire point/advantage of using the noninertial frame of reference)?
Call the acceleration of the wedge 'a'. Then write your force equations for the block in the accelerating frame of the wedge. (How is the block's motion constrained?)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top