Why does a car apply a force to a wall?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the physics of a car applying force to a wall, particularly during a collision scenario. A participant attempts to calculate net force using incorrect assumptions about friction having mass and acceleration, leading to confusion. It is clarified that friction is a force, not a mass, and the net force equation should only include the mass of the object and its acceleration. Questions arise about the specifics of the situation, such as whether the car collides with the wall and how friction factors into collision calculations. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately defining the problem and understanding fundamental physics concepts.
Selfphysicslearner
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
when we have 0 acceleration(constant speed) like a car traveling at a constant speed,
ƒnet=ma
ƒnet=(mobject+mfriction).(aobject+afriction)
let m object be 1500 kg.
m friction be 10 kg
a object be 0
a friction be 20m/s^2
so when we calculate fnet=-20*1600=-32 000 Newtons.
which means wall applies force towards car but the situation isn't like this.
questions:where did I make a mistake?
2-does friction have a mass or acceleration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Selfphysicslearner said:
when we have 0 acceleration(constant speed) like a car traveling at a constant speed,
ƒnet=ma
ƒnet=(mobject+mfriction).(aobject+afriction)
let m object be 1500 kg.
m friction be 10 kg
a object be 0
a friction be 20m/s^2
so when we calculate fnet=-20*1600=-32 000 Newtons.
which means wall applies force towards car but the situation isn't like this.
questions:where did I make a mistake?
2-does friction have a mass or acceleration?
This is not good. I guess from your name you are self-learning physics. There are some fundamental problems here. An object has only one mass. The idea of a friction mass is not valid. I can't imagine where you got that idea from.
 
Selfphysicslearner said:
friction have a mass or acceleration?
No. None of the two. Friction is a force.
Dimension mass times length divided by (time squared)
Units kgm/s2

So that is the mistake you make.

In your ##f_{\rm net} = m\, a##
##m## is the mass of the object​
##a## is the acceleration of the object​
##f_ {\rm net} ## is the net force on the object : the vector sum of one or more of the following:​
  • gravity
  • normal force
  • friction
  • external force(s)
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
Selfphysicslearner said:
where did I make a mistake
There is problem in that you have not actually stated the situation / problem - except implied in the title.
It's sometimes very hard to get started with this sort of thing and you need to marshal your thoughts if you want to make progress with it.
Does the car hit the wall and come to a standstill?
Do you want to know the Force that acts on the car?
Where do you think friction comes into the collision calculations?
What do you know about collisions and the rules that we apply in calculations about collisions?
A diagram could help, perhaps - either draw one just for yourself or post it.
 
Selfphysicslearner said:
...but the situation isn't like this
What is the situation like then?
 
PeroK said:
I guess from your name you are self-learning physics.
Or learning self-physics.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top