Understanding Friction Force: Net Force of X-Component Explained

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the net force acting on a moving puck, specifically why the net force of the x-component is equal to the negative kinetic friction force (-f(k)). It clarifies that once the puck is in motion, it continues moving due to inertia, and the only force acting against its motion is the kinetic friction. The net force being -f(k) indicates that the puck is indeed accelerating, as it is the sole force acting on it. The conversation emphasizes that if there were another force counteracting -f(k), the net force would be zero, not -f(k). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping the principles of motion and friction.
taegello
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me why

net Force of x-component = -f(k) in a moving puck? I don't get how the net Force of x-component be just the kinetic friction force. What about the force that the puck is using to be actually moving? shouldn't that force be included in the net Force of x-component?

When an object is still on an incline,
net Force of x-component = (mg)(sin theta) - f(s) = 0

on when an object is moving, shouldn't it be something minus f(k)?

Any help would be greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The puck does not "use" any force just to be moving. Once it starts moving it will continue moving on its own (as long as any friction acting on it is compensated for by another force, of course).
 
but if net Fx = - f(k) the puck shouldn't be moving or at least moving with constant accelleration? isn't this saying that ma= -f(k)? if the opposing forces are the same, how can the object be moving? any force of ma will be canceled out by -f(k)

I am so lost...
 
Last edited:
taegello said:
but if net Fx = - f(k) the puck shouldn't be moving or at least moving with constant accelleration? isn't this saying that ma= -f(k)?
If the net force Fx = -f(k), then the puck is accelerating.
if the opposing forces are the same, how can the object be moving? any force of ma will be canceled out by -f(k)
(1) There's no opposing force. -f(k) is the only (or the net) force acting.
(2) "ma" is not a force, it's mass*acceleration. Newton's 2nd law tells us that the net force on an object will equal ma: ∑F = ma.
(3) If another force acted to cancel out the -f(k) force, then the net force would be zero, not -f(k).
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top