What is the maximum frictional force?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum frictional force of a block on a 35-degree incline. The user calculated it as 69N using sin(35) multiplied by 120N, while the book states it as 675N using a different formula. The confusion arises from the book's incorrect treatment of weight and mass, mistakenly multiplying the weight in Newtons by 9.81 instead of recognizing it as the force due to gravity. The user contemplates creating a Physics Forum page to correct such errors in textbooks. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately understanding the relationship between mass, weight, and gravitational force in physics calculations.
Shaye
Messages
20
Reaction score
7
Homework Statement
The block in the diagram weighs 120N. It will start to slip down the slope when the component of it's weight acting down the slop equals the maximum frictional force. If the block slips when the angle Θ = 35 degrees what is the maximum frictional force?
Relevant Equations
Sin(Θ)*Opposite = Hypotenuse and F=Ma
In the attachment I am supposed to calculate the maximum frictional force of a block on a 35 degree angle incline (that is the point at which the force acting opposite frictional force is highest)

I make it out to be sin(35)*120N = 69N but the book says 675N and it gives it as cost(55)*120N*9.81. But given F=Ma how so?

I don't understand this or something has slipped my mind. The diagonal force component (hypotenuse) should be 69N because the veridical component is 120N.

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • 20201107_163943.jpg
    20201107_163943.jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 169
Physics news on Phys.org
The book has confused weight with mass in producing their answer. They've erroneously multiplied the weight in Newtons by 9.81, or g. One multiplies a mass by g to get force due to gravity. But they've provided that force already as a weight of 120 N.
 
  • Like
Likes Shaye and TSny
What book is this? I am thinking of creating a Physics Forum page of book corrections.
 
gneill said:
The book has confused weight with mass in producing their answer. They've erroneously multiplied the weight in Newtons by 9.81, or g. One multiplies a mass by g to get force due to gravity. But they've provided that force already as a weight of 120 N.

Phew! Thanks. I thought I was going mad
 
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