Well of Death: Physics behind it

  • Thread starter Thread starter NTesla
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Death Physics
AI Thread Summary
In a well of death scenario, the maximum speed (vmax) for a car on a vertical banked curve is complex due to the effects of friction and the angle of the bank (theta). When theta approaches 90 degrees, traditional calculations for vmax yield imaginary results, indicating that there is no defined maximum speed under these conditions. Instead, the focus shifts to the minimum speed (vmin) required to prevent the car from sliding down, which is influenced by the friction force acting upward against gravity. As theta increases beyond 45 degrees, the effective radius of the turn decreases, complicating the dynamics further. Ultimately, at theta equal to 90 degrees, there is no vmax, as the only limiting factor becomes the g-force acting on the vehicle.
NTesla
Messages
183
Reaction score
23
Homework Statement
What will be the maximum velocity for a bike/car to go around in a well of death, when the wall of well of death is vertical, i.e. at 90 degrees ?
Relevant Equations
$$v_{max} = \sqrt{\frac{rg(sin\theta +\mu cos\theta)}{(cos\theta -\mu sin\theta)}}$$
While studying motion of car on banked curve, I was wondering, what will be the vmax when theta is equal to 90 degrees or is close to 90 degrees as it happens in a well of death which is organised in a village fair.

On a banked road with friction present, vmax is given by:
formula for vmax.png

if we put theta = 90 degrees in the formula above, which is the angle in the well of death, then
formula for vmax when theta is 90.png

But that is not acceptable, as vmax can't be an imaginary number.

I understand that if theta = 90 degrees, then the minimum value of v i.e vmin is given by:

formula for vmin when theta is 90.png

This is understandable.

How do I calculate the value of vmax when theta = 90 degrees ?

5wu0m2DcOd2JT4QJbJ09VhfpppX354mrciT9qm4QX=s40-p-mo.png
ReplyForward
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
NTesla said:
Normally, on a banked road with friction present
Check out the assumptions for 'normally'. What happens if ##v>v_{\text{max}}## ?

And what happens in
1669288120947.png
if you don't substitute ##\theta ={\pi\over 2} ## but take the limit ##\theta \uparrow{\pi\over 2}## ?

[edit] hmmm... this last one seems to be way off track... depending on ##\mu##, ##\cos\theta-\mu\sin\theta## makes ##v_{\text{max}}\uparrow\infty ## even before ##\theta ={\pi\over 2} ##. So: what's going on when ##\cos\theta-\mu\sin\theta## hits 0 ?

##\ ##
 
Last edited:
by BvU.png

I'm assuming that what you meant to write was: what happens if v > vmax. Well, in that case, the car will start to slide up the wall of the well.
And for the 2nd part that you asked, if theta tends to pi/2, then, i'm reaching the same value for vmax as i had mentioned in the question above. Here's my calculation:

$$v_{max} = \sqrt{\frac{rg(tan\theta +\mu)}{(1 -\mu tan\theta)}}$$
$$v_{max} =\lim_{\theta \to \pi/2} \sqrt{\frac{rg(tan\theta +\mu)}{(1 -\mu tan\theta)}}$$
$$v_{max} =\sqrt{rg}\lim_{\theta \to \pi/2} \sqrt{\frac{(1 +\frac{\mu}{tan\theta}{})}{(\frac{1}{tan\theta} -\mu)}}$$
$$v_{max} =\sqrt{rg} \sqrt{\frac{1}{-\mu}}$$
$$v_{max} =\sqrt{\frac{rg}{-\mu}}$$

It's again the same result as if i had put ##\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}##.

Help is needed.
 
As I indicated, I was off track with that last one.

BvU said:
So: what's going on when ##\cos\theta-\mu\sin\theta## hits 0 ?
in other words ##\tan\theta \uparrow 1/\mu ## ?

##\ ##
 
what does the up arrow, between ##tan\theta## and ##\frac{1}{\mu}## signify ?
 
"Approaches that value ##1/\mu## from below"
 
BvU said:
"Approaches that value ##1/\mu## from below"
yes, that's the essence of the initial question that i have asked..
Somebody, kindly throw some light on this question..
 
NTesla said:
yes, that's the essence of the initial question that i have asked..
So we find that ##v_\text{max}## has no upper bound for ##\theta\ge\arctan{1\over\mu}##.
I.e. the answer to your initial question is "there is no maximum".

Now all we have to sort out is what is going on physically. That involves digging into the derivation of the expression for ##v_\text{max}## :smile:

##\ ##
 
Do you want a hint ?
 
  • #10
NTesla said:
Homework Statement::
On a banked road with friction present, vmax is given by:
View attachment 317645
I would like you to go over the derivation of this equation. Notice that, when we are talking about the vertical "wall of death," the friction force must be acting upward. In the derivation of the equation you posted, the friction force is assumed to be down the slope. If it did that then your car will fall down the wall. So you need to reorient the frictional force to point up the slope. You get a similar equation:
##v_{max}= \sqrt{rg \dfrac{(sin( \theta ) - \mu ~ cos( \theta ) )}{( cos( \theta ) + \mu ~ sin( \theta ) )}}##
which is perfectly well-behaved for ##\theta = 90##.

-Dan
 
  • #11
topsquark said:
I would like you to go over the derivation of this equation. Notice that, when we are talking about the vertical "wall of death," the friction force must be acting upward. In the derivation of the equation you posted, the friction force is assumed to be down the slope. If it did that then your car will fall down the wall. So you need to reorient the frictional force to point up the slope. You get a similar equation:
##v_{max}= \sqrt{rg \dfrac{(sin( \theta ) - \mu ~ cos( \theta ) )}{( cos( \theta ) + \mu ~ sin( \theta ) )}}##
which is perfectly well-behaved for ##\theta = 90##.

-Dan
What you wrote is the equation for ##v_{min}##. The friction will not always act upward. Since we are trying to find out vmax, therefore, the friction will act downward. In my original question, i did mention that ##v_{min}## will be = ##\sqrt{\frac{rg}{\mu}}##.
The question remains as it is..
 
Last edited:
  • #12
NTesla said:
What you wrote is the equation for ##v_{min}##. In my original question, i did mention that ##v_{min}## will be = ##\sqrt{\frac{rg}{\mu}}##.
The question remains as it is..
Normally I'd agree with you. But in this case can the friction force be pointing downward? If ##\theta < 90## the normal force contributes to keeping the car at its height. But if the wall is vertical then N points solely in the radial direction, without any vertical component. The friction force is the only thing holding the car up.

There isn't really a "##v_{max}##" in this case.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes NTesla, Lnewqban and 256bits
  • #13
Maximum:
The maximum velocity in that case is limited only by the g-force pulling the rider or driver against the wall of the well.

Minimum:
At 90 degrees, the only lateral force on the vehicle is its own weight.
Like it happens to a car in a horizontal curve, the only way to compensate that lateral force is by steering the front wheels.

Because of the above, there is a minimum value of tangential velocity that is needed.
That forward velocity induces enough centrifugal effect to reach a minimum necessary value of normal force and lateral friction force to prevent the car from sliding down the well.
 
  • #14
Lnewqban said:
Maximum:
The maximum velocity in that case is limited only by the g-force pulling the rider or driver against the wall of the well.
What's the expression for vmax according to you..?
 
  • #15
BvU said:
So we find that ##v_\text{max}## has no upper bound for ##\theta\ge\arctan{1\over\mu}##.
I.e. the answer to your initial question is "there is no maximum".

Now all we have to sort out is what is going on physically. That involves digging into the derivation of the expression for ##v_\text{max}## :smile:

##\ ##
I have already derived the expression for vmax, and i had posted the expression for vmax in my original question.
 
  • #16
topsquark said:
Normally I'd agree with you. But in this case can the friction force be pointing downward? If ##\theta < 90## the normal force contributes to keeping the car at its height. But if the wall is vertical then N points solely in the radial direction, without any vertical component. The friction force is the only thing holding the car up.

There isn't really a "##v_{max}##" in this case.

-Dan
So, if i've understood you correctly, then what you are saying is that, as long as ##\theta## is not equal to 90 degrees, friction will act downward, as we are finding vmax. But then suddenly, when ##\theta## = 90 degrees, friction will suddenly act upwards, without there being any moment when friction = 0. Friction will also act upward if velocity of car is less than vmin.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
  • #18
That link is about the topic of human endurance to high g. I'm trying to understand what will be the vmax when g = 9.8m/s^2, in a well of death. If you've figured out the expression, then kindly let me know too..
 
  • #19
topsquark said:
There isn't really a "##v_{max}##" in this case.
So, there wont be a vmax in 3 cases: (1) when ##\mu tan\theta## is equal to 1. (2) When ##\theta## = 90 degrees and (3) when ##\mu##=1 and ##\theta##= 45 degrees.. Is that right..?
 
Last edited:
  • #20
NTesla said:
So, if i've understood you correctly, then what you are saying is that, as long as ##\theta## is not equal to 90 degrees, friction will act downward, as we are finding vmax. But then suddenly, when ##\theta## = 90 degrees, friction will suddenly act upwards, without there being any moment when friction = 0. Friction will also act upward if velocity of car is less than vmin.
There is no 'suddenly'.

BvU said:
Check out the assumptions for 'normally'.
The expressions including ##\mu## assume a direction for the friction force. And ##\mu N## is the maximum friction force. When ##v## runs from ##v_\text{min}## to ##v_\text{max}##, the friction force varies gradually from a maximum in one direction to a maximum in the other.

##\ ##
 
  • #21
BvU said:
There is no 'suddenly'.The expressions including ##\mu## assume a direction for the friction force. And ##\mu N## is the maximum friction force. When ##v## runs from ##v_\text{min}## to ##v_\text{max}##, the friction force varies gradually from a maximum in one direction to a maximum in the other.

##\ ##
##\mu N_{max}## is the maximum friction force. Value of N will keep on varying since N is a function of velocity.. isn't it ?
 
  • #22
NTesla said:
That link is about the topic of human endurance to high g. I'm trying to understand what will be the vmax when g = 9.8m/s^2, in a well of death. If you've figured out the expression, then kindly let me know too..
Please, consider how heavy that person feels while doing this performance.
That is the limit to the velocity.
 
  • #23
Lnewqban said:
Please, consider how heavy that person feels while doing this performance.
That is the limit to the velocity.
let's say there isn't a person doing the round, it's just a machine.. Then what will be the vmax when theta= 90 degrees..?
 
  • #24
NTesla said:
let's say there isn't a person doing the round, it's just a machine.. Then what will be the vmax when theta= 90 degrees..?
The maximum speed that the machine can develop.

You are after the maximum speed with which a car can take a curve without sliding out.
Once the angle of bank grows over 45, that maximum needed speed starts to decrease as the angle increases, simply because the effective radius of the turn also starts to decrease.
Once the bank of a curve reaches 90 degrees, there is no more curve.

The shape of your road has gone from a circle to a cone to a cylinder!
 
  • #25
Lnewqban said:
maximum needed speed starts to decrease...
Shouldn't it be minimum needed speed, which according to me should continue to increase as theta increases..
 
  • #26
Could someone please let me know if my statements in post# 19 and post#21 above, are right or wrong..

post#19: So, there wont be a vmax in 3 cases: (1) when ##\mu tan\theta## is equal to 1. (2) When ##\theta## = 90 degrees and (3) when ##\mu##=1 and ##\theta##= 45 degrees.. Is that right..?

post#21: ##\mu N_{max}## is the maximum friction force. Value of N will keep on varying since N is a function of velocity.. isn't it ?
 
Last edited:
  • #27
NTesla said:
Shouldn't it be minimum needed speed, which according to me should continue to increase as theta increases..
Is that a question or an assertion?
Why should it continue to increase?
 
  • #28
NTesla said:
Could someone please let me know if my statements in post# 19 and post#21 above, are right or wrong..

post#19: So, there wont be a vmax in 3 cases: (1) when ##\mu tan\theta## is equal to 1. (2) When ##\theta## = 90 degrees and (3) when ##\mu##=1 and ##\theta##= 45 degrees.. Is that right..?

post#21: ##\mu N_{max}## is the maximum friction force. Value of N will keep on varying since N is a function of velocity.. isn't it ?
The answer to your question is simply to sketch a FBD of the situation. If angle is less than 90 degrees there will be a minimum speed and maximum speed in order to keep the car at a specific height. The normal force has a component in the vertical direction and is a counter to the weight component down the slope.

But in this case, the wall is vertical so the normal force no longer has a component in the vertical direction. The only force that can counter the weight is friction. So friction has to be pointed upward. Technically this means that there is no ##v_{max}## because any higher speed will not change the friction situation, nor will it change anything about the height. But if the speed is too low then friction cannot support the weight of the car.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes NTesla, nasu and Lnewqban
  • #29
First, I'm not sure where you got that this equation is for ##v_{max}##; it is for ##v## in general.

Second, the 'true' equation is:
$$\frac{v^2}{rg} = \frac{\sin\theta + \frac{f}{N}\cos\theta}{\cos\theta - \frac{f}{N}\sin\theta}$$
Where ##f## is the friction pointing down the slope, which means a negative value is possible; it only means it is going against the slope.

What is the value of ##\frac{f}{N}##? Well:
$$mg = N\cos\theta - f\sin\theta$$
Therefore:
$$\frac{f}{N} = \frac{\cos\theta - \frac{mg}{N}}{\sin\theta}$$
Note how it can have a negative value. Putting it in our original equation:
$$\frac{v^2}{rg} = \frac{\sin\theta + \left(\frac{\cos\theta - \frac{mg}{N}}{\sin\theta}\right)\cos\theta}{\cos\theta - \left(\frac{\cos\theta - \frac{mg}{N}}{\sin\theta}\right)\sin\theta}$$
Or:
$$\frac{m\frac{v^2}{r}}{N} = \sin\theta +\frac{\cos\theta - \frac{mg}{N}}{\tan\theta}$$
Isolating ##N## we get either:
$$N= \frac{m\frac{v^2}{r}\tan\theta + mg}{\sin\theta \tan\theta +\cos\theta}$$
or:
$$N = \frac{m\frac{v^2}{r} + \frac{mg}{\tan\theta}}{\sin\theta + \frac{\cos\theta}{\tan\theta}}$$
  • In the first form, assuming ##\theta=0##, we get ##N=mg##.
  • In the second form, assuming ##\theta = 90°##, we get ##N=m\frac{v^2}{r}##.
That's it. There is no ##v_{max}##. Whether ##\theta=0## or ##\theta=90°## or anywhere in between, you can go as fast as you want in any case. Only the normal force will change, which is independent of ##v## when ##\theta=0## and independent of ##g## when ##\theta=90°##.

But let's isolate ##\frac{f}{N}## in our original equation instead:
$$\frac{f}{N} = \frac{\frac{v^2}{rg}\cos\theta - \sin\theta}{\frac{v^2}{rg}\sin\theta + \cos\theta}$$
Or:
$$\frac{f}{N} = \frac{\frac{v^2}{rg} - \tan\theta}{\frac{v^2}{rg}\tan\theta + 1}$$
And we know that to remain static (our assumption in the first place i.e. no sliding):
$$\mu_s > \left|\frac{f}{N}\right|$$
So:
$$\mu_s > \left|\frac{\frac{v^2}{rg} - \tan\theta}{\frac{v^2}{rg}\tan\theta + 1}\right|$$
But that doesn't indicate a ##v_{min}## either, just a ##\mu_{s,\ min}##. That only means that the required friction coefficient will vary between ##\frac{v^2}{rg}## at ##\theta=0## (such that the vehicle doesn't slide out the curve) and ##\frac{rg}{v^2}## at ##\theta=90°## (such that the vehicle doesn't slide down, or "into" the curve).

The only notable thing is that if ##\frac{v^2}{rg} = \tan\theta## then ##f=0## and therefore no friction is required.We can find a ##v_{min}## and ##v_{max}## such that the vehicle doesn't begin to slide in either way.

Assuming a given ##\mu_s##, we go back to our original equation (converted to the ##\tan## equivalent):
$$\frac{v_{min}^2}{rg} = \frac{\tan\theta + (-\mu_s)}{1 - (-\mu_s)\tan\theta}$$
$$\frac{v_{max}^2}{rg} = \frac{\tan\theta + \mu_s}{1 - \mu_s\tan\theta}$$
In both cases, the right-hand side cannot be negative, so:
$$\frac{v_{min}^2}{rg} = \frac{\max\{\tan\theta; \mu_s\} - \mu_s}{1 + \mu_s\tan\theta}$$
$$\frac{v_{max}^2}{rg} = \frac{\tan\theta + \mu_s}{1 - \mu_s\min\{\tan\theta;\frac{1}{\mu_s}\}}$$
I think I got it all right.
 
  • #30
Hi @NTesla. Can l put my twopence worth in?

If you go round a banked curve at a sufficiently high speed, you tend to slide upwards. (You should understand why this happens.) Static friction opposes the upwards sliding by acting downwards.

If ##\theta \lt 90^o## and you are going too fast, you will may slide upwards because downwards friction isn't big enough to prevent the sliding. Your maximum speed to avoid sliding upwards is ##V_{max}##.

Note that if ##\theta= 90^o## there is no tendency to slide upwards (and you should understand why).

The equation for ##V_{max}## applies only when the frictional force is at its maximum (limiting) value of ##\mu N## and is acting downwards - because that’s how the ##V_{max}## equation is derived. But when ##\theta = 90^0## there is no downwards friction because there is no tendency to move upwards. Friction will act upwards and it's magntiude will equal ##|mg|##; the equation for ##V_{max}## is inapplicable.
_____________

Additional note. It’s not just ##\theta = 90^o## where care is needed. For example if ##\mu = 0.9## and ##\theta = 60^o## then ##\cos(\theta) - \mu \sin(\theta) = \cos(60^o) – 0.9\sin(60^o) = -0.279## which gives a negative value inside the square root.

That’s because the ##V_{max}## equation cannot be used because friction doesn’t need to reach its limiting value to prevent upwards sliding for these values of ##\mu## and ##\theta##.

The ##V_{max}## equation is therefore inapplicable in this case- and this was signalled by the fact that ##\cos(\theta) - \mu \sin(\theta)## was negative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes NTesla, MatinSAR, topsquark and 1 other person
  • #32
NTesla said:
But that is not acceptable, as vmax can't be an imaginary number.
When you write an equation to represent a physical behaviour, it often only applies in a range of situations. In this case, in writing the equation, you have assumed that there will be a speed at which it will slide up. If you get a silly answer, likely the assumption was false.
Even before you substituted θ=90° there was a problem. You can see that for any θ>0 there are values of μ which give an infinite or imaginary result, telling you it cannot slide up. What θ=90° did was to push all values of μ into that class.
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR, topsquark and Lnewqban
  • #33
This reminds me of the problem of trying to slide a box across a rough horizontal surface with a force applied at a downward angle:
1669317728558.png


For a given ##\mu_s##, if ##\theta > \tan^{-1}(1/\mu_s)##, then the box will not slide no matter how strong the force ##F##.

Likewise, for this problem. If ##\theta > \tan^{-1}(1/\mu_s)##, then the car will not slide upward on the slope no matter how fast the car is traveling. There is no ##v_{max}## for ##\theta > \tan^{-1}(1/\mu_s)##.
 
  • Like
Likes Steve4Physics, MatinSAR, topsquark and 1 other person
  • #34
Banking car.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Like
Likes MatinSAR and topsquark
  • #35
In the vertical wall case (horizontal rider), what force is balancing the torques about the point of contact?

P.s. This is me asking, because I’m not seeing it; not me asking the OP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes NTesla and topsquark
  • #36
erobz said:
In the vertical wall case (horizontal rider), what force is balancing the torques about the point of contact?
The rider has to incline at an angle to the horizontal as shown in this diagram:
https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-conte...oads/2015/10/force-acting-on-a-bike2.gif-.gif
(which is from this site: https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/science-behind-the-wall-of-death.html)

In the rider’s (non-inertial, rotating) frame of reference, the (fictitious) centrifugal force, acts through he centre of mass, providing the necessary torque to balance the torque from the weight.

In the ground (inertial) frame of reference, it’s harder to explain - so I’ll leave it to someone else!
 
  • Like
Likes erobz, topsquark and Lnewqban
  • #37
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR and topsquark
  • #39
Has anyone considered the torque due to the car center of mass not being right at the wall and how that impacts the problem?
 
  • #40
bob012345 said:
Has anyone considered the torque due to the car center of mass not being right at the wall and how that impacts the problem?
For the bike case, the bike is angled so that the net reaction from the wall passes through the mass centre. For the car, the same can be done except that it is limited by the angle the mass centre subtends to the wheelbase each side. If a vertical through the mass centre falls below the wheelbase there is a minimum speed to avoid rolling, and if a horizontal through it passes above the wheelbase there is a maximum.
 
  • #41
haruspex said:
For the bike case, the bike is angled so that the net reaction from the wall passes through the mass centre. For the car, the same can be done except that it is limited by the angle the mass centre subtends to the wheelbase each side. If a vertical through the mass centre falls below the wheelbase there is a minimum speed to avoid rolling, and if a horizontal through it passes above the wheelbase there is a maximum.
I would like to understand this further...

The bike is definitely angled, as I've seen in the videos and pics available on internet. But, I'm still trying to figure out how to understand it. When an object is on an incline, the reaction force from the surface is Normal to the surface. However, presently we are discussing about the situation when the wall is perpendicular to the ground. In post#40, you've mentioned that net reaction from the wall passes through the mass center. Could you kindly clarify what constitues the net reaction from the wall. I am assuming that one is the Normal reaction from the wall(which is normal to the surface of the wall), another is friction (acting upwards). Would the vector sum of these forces is the net reaction from the wall that you had mentioned in post #40 above.
DCIM_Camera_IMG_20221210_230638.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #42
NTesla said:
I would like to understand this further...

The bike is definitely angled, as I've seen in the videos and pics available on internet. But, I'm still trying to figure out how to understand it. When an object is on an incline, the reaction force from the surface is Normal to the surface. However, presently we are discussing about the situation when the wall is perpendicular to the ground. In post#40, you've mentioned that net reaction from the wall passes through the mass center. Could you kindly clarify what constitues the net reaction from the wall. I am assuming that one is the Normal reaction from the wall(which is normal to the surface of the wall), another is friction (acting upwards). Would the vector sum of these forces is the net reaction from the wall that you had mentioned in post #40 above.View attachment 318564
I have to be careful with the wording here. A force is more than just a vector; it also has line of action, which vectors in general do not have. Likewise, the net force of a collection of forces is more than just their vector sum. Its line of action is such that it has the same net moment about any given axis.
So I would rather say the net of normal and frictional forces passes through the mass centre. Were it not to, there would be a net moment about the mass centre.
 
  • #43
haruspex said:
A force is more than just a vector; it also has line of action, which vectors in general do not have.
I had the understanding that a vector has inherent property of showing direction and a magnitude in that direction. Why couldn't that direction be considered a line of action..? Could you kindly let me know how i could learn more about this conundrum.
 
Last edited:
  • #44
NTesla said:
I had the understanding that a vector has inherent property of showing direction and a magnitude in that direction. Why couldn't that direction be considered a line of action..?
Whichever end of a seesaw I sit on my weight will be the same vector, but the line of action will be different. That matters for torques.
 
  • #45
haruspex said:
Whichever end of a seesaw I sit on my weight will be the same vector, but the line of action will be different. That matters for torques.
Line of action of the weight will be towards negative z axis, if we consider positive z axis towards sky and origin of coordinate system being the hinge in the middle of the seesaw. However, torque will be towards positive or negative y axis( depending upon which side of the seesaw we sit on). Even then, the line of action of the torques will be y axis, even when the direction on the y axis will be different, so eventually the line of action of the torque will be same. But even then it's the torque whose line of action we are talking about, not the line of action of the force.. Atleast that is how I'm presently viewing the situation about line of action.

Kindly help me understand your point of view.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
NTesla said:
Line of action of the weight will be towards negative z axis
No, that's a direction, not a line of action.
NTesla said:
torque will be towards positive or negative y axis( depending upon which side of the seesaw we sit on)
Yes, because those are different lines of action.
If I sit on the left hand seat the line of action of my weight is along the vertical line drawn through that seat.
 
  • #47
haruspex said:
No, that's a direction, not a line of action.
So, in the situation of a seesaw, if two people (of same weight) are sitting on the two sides of the seesaw, then their weight will have same direction(towards negative z axis), therefore, their weight vectors will be same, but since these two weights are not acting from the same point in space, they are some distance apart from each other, therefore, the line of action of the two weights are different. Is that right..?

But what are we gaining by defining line of action as distinct entity from vector..?
 
  • #48
NTesla said:
what are we gaining by defining line of action as distinct entity from vector..?
It has to be distinct because it is not a property vectors in general have. And the importance of it for forces is that it determines the torque exerted about any given axis. If ##\vec s## is a vector from the axis to any point in the line of action then the torque exerted is ##\vec s\times\vec F##.
 
  • #49
haruspex said:
It has to be distinct because it is not a property vectors in general have. And the importance of it for forces is that it determines the torque exerted about any given axis. If ##\vec s## is a vector from the axis to any point in the line of action then the torque exerted is ##\vec s\times\vec F##.
ok.. but I'm not able to see how that is significant in the topic of well of death in which theta is 90 degrees..?

In the photo of post#41, torque due to weight mg can only be balanced by the torque to centrifugal force(working in non-inertial frame of reference), as Normal reaction from the surface of the wall and friction both these act at the point of contact so their torque would be zero.

Would that be correct to say..?
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Can I add this...
NTesla said:
But what are we gaining by defining line of action as distinct entity from vector..?
We are gaining the ability to calculate a torque.

For example, you have a force of 100N acting left. You know both the magnitude and direction.

What torque does this force produce about the origin?

The question can't be answered because you don't know the force's line of action (or, equivalently, you don't know a point in space through which the force acts).
 
Back
Top