Understanding Friction Force: Net Force of X-Component Explained

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of net force in the context of a moving puck experiencing kinetic friction. Participants are exploring the relationship between the forces acting on the puck, particularly focusing on how kinetic friction affects its motion and the interpretation of net force in this scenario.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the net force of the x-component is equal to the kinetic friction force (-f(k)) when the puck is moving, suggesting that the force responsible for the puck's motion should also be considered.
  • Another participant asserts that once the puck is in motion, it continues to move without needing an additional force, as long as friction is countered by another force.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the implications of net force being equal to -f(k), questioning how the puck can be moving if this implies that the net force is acting against its motion.
  • Further clarification is provided that if net force Fx equals -f(k), it indicates that the puck is accelerating, and emphasizes that -f(k) is the only net force acting on the puck, not an opposing force.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the interpretation of net force and its implications for the puck's motion. There is no consensus on how to reconcile the concepts of kinetic friction and the forces involved in the puck's movement.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the assumptions regarding the forces acting on the puck, particularly in relation to the definitions of net force and the role of kinetic friction in motion.

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).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K