Why Did My Second Approach to Finding the Block's Acceleration Fail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter guyvsdcsniper
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration
AI Thread Summary
The second approach to finding the block's acceleration failed due to an inconsistency in the definition of the y-direction. In the whiteboard calculation, the y-direction was initially taken as perpendicular to the ground, but later switched to being along the normal force. This inconsistency led to confusion in the setup of the force equations. The correct approach requires maintaining a consistent definition of the y-direction throughout the calculations. Clarifying this aspect should help resolve the issue and lead to the correct answer.
guyvsdcsniper
Messages
264
Reaction score
37
Homework Statement
Find the blocks acceleration on a wedge.
Relevant Equations
F=MA
I am currently solving this problem and approached it two different ways. I have attached a ss of the picture for reference.

On my first attempt, shown on the attached image in pen, I used a component of the normal force and weight as my forces in the y direction. I carried out the work and ended up getting the correct answer according to my book.

I then tried a different approach, as shown by the image with the whiteboard, and used the actual normal force and a component of the force of gravity. When I used this approach I got stuck and did not see anyway of attaining the correct answer.

What is incorrect about the 2nd approach that is preventing me from getting the right answer?
Paperwork.JPG
Whiteboard work.JPG
Screen Shot 2022-02-10 at 4.50.05 PM.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the whiteboard calculation, it looks like you are taking the y-direction to be perpendicular to the ground for the diagram and the constraint equation:
1644624774911.png


But when you set up the ##\sum F_y## equation, you switch to taking the y-direction to be perpendicular to the plane (i.e., along the normal force ##N##):
1644624874904.png


So, there is an inconsistency in the choice of the y-direction for the whiteboard calculation. ##y## in the constraint equation is not the same as the ##y## in the ##\sum F_y## equation.
 
  • Like
Likes guyvsdcsniper
TSny said:
In the whiteboard calculation, it looks like you are taking the y-direction to be perpendicular to the ground for the diagram and the constraint equation:
View attachment 296975

But when you set up the ##\sum F_y## equation, you switch to taking the y-direction to be perpendicular to the plane (i.e., along the normal force ##N##):
View attachment 296976

So, there is an inconsistency in the choice of the y-direction for the whiteboard calculation. ##y## in the constraint equation is not the same as the ##y## in the ##\sum F_y## equation.
Thank you. That makes it very clear.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top