Why is the normal force constant on a moving inclined plane?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter simpleton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acceleration Constant
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of the normal force acting on a block sliding down a frictionless inclined plane that is also on a frictionless surface. Participants explore the assumptions made in a problem-solving context, particularly focusing on why the normal force is considered constant despite the motion of the block and the slope.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assumption that the normal force (N) is constant throughout the motion, suggesting that the slope moves away from the block, which should change N.
  • Another participant argues that since the block is always in contact with the slope and its weight remains constant, N should also remain constant.
  • Some participants express confusion about how the normal force can be constant when the velocities of the block and slope differ as they move.
  • A participant mentions that if the slope were a different shape, such as a parabola, the acceleration of the incline would not be constant, implying that the shape of the slope could affect the normal force.
  • Concerns are raised about the relevance of electromagnetic forces in this context, with a suggestion that the distance between the block and the slope remains zero during the motion, supporting the idea of a constant normal force.
  • Another participant questions why the normal force is not equal to mg*cos x, suggesting that the motion of the slope should affect the normal force's value.
  • One participant introduces the concept of observing the normal force from a non-inertial frame, asserting that it remains constant in an inertial frame during the motion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the normal force can be considered constant during the motion, with some supporting the assumption and others challenging it. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of the normal force in this scenario.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions, such as the frictionless nature of the surfaces and the constant weight of the block, but these assumptions do not lead to a consensus on the behavior of the normal force.

simpleton
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I just saw the solution to a problem I was pondering about recently and did not really understand one of the steps/assumptions they made, and therefore I hope that you guys can clarify my doubts.

The question is like this, you have a block on a frictionless inclined slope of height h and inclined x from the horizontal. The slope is on a frictionless surface as well. The block has mass m and the slope has mass M. Calculate the time taken for the block to reach the bottom of the slope.

For those who wants to know, the answer is:

sqrt[(2h(M + m sin^2 x))/((M+m) g sin^2 x)]

But I have a few doubts about the method used to solve the problem (I am talking about the method that uses Newtonian Mechanics, not Lagrangian, my physics is not that good yet XD).

In the method given, You draw the forces exerted on the block and on the slope. For the block, the forces are mg (weight) and N (reaction force from the slope). For the slope, it is N(the reaction force from the block). Then you assume that the reaction force N is constant, so after you applied Newton's Laws and resolved the accelerations into the correct axes, you can use kinematics equations.

However, I don't understand why N is constant throughout the motion. Isn't the slope moving away from the block? If it is, then N should change rit? Actually, when I was trying to solve the problem at first, I thought that there might be moments when the block might be not in contact with the slope, so I was thinking of the block making repeated elastic collisions with the slope, but it seems I am wrong.

Therefore, can someone please explain to me why N is constant, or give a formal proof? Thanks a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
simpleton said:
Hi,
However, I don't understand why N is constant throughout the motion. Isn't the slope moving away from the block?
Therefore, can someone please explain to me why N is constant, or give a formal proof? Thanks a lot.

Why do you think the "slope should move away". The block is in contact with the surface all the time and since the weight of the block is constant and I assume also that the slope is constant. Then at any time and position of the downward slide you should calculate the same normal force.
 
I think the slope should move away because the block is exerting a force onto the slope, which pushes the slope in the opposite direction. Therefore, the slope is moving away from the block and thus the reaction force should change.
 
simpleton said:
I think the slope should move away because the block is exerting a force onto the slope, which pushes the slope in the opposite direction. Therefore, the slope is moving away from the block and thus the reaction force should change.

When you stand on your feet does the Earth move away from your feet?
 
Sorry i misunderstood your problem since i am tired (doing homework at 3am). But what i said still holds. They assume that the normal is constant since the weight is constant and the slope does not change. If for example the slide would be a parabola the acceleration of the incline would not be constant.
 
Sorry, I don't understand why the fact that the slope and the weight does not change will make the normal force constant. Because after the block has moved, the velocities of the block and the slope will be different. And from what I understand, the reaction force is the force at which the electrons repel you when you go into the microscopic level rit? So if you push harder onto a wall or something, there is a greater normal force because the repulsion will be greater.

In this case, the slope now has velocity and is moving away from the block. If it is moving away from the block, shouldn't the normal force (repulsion of the electrons) decrease too, because as the slope is moving away from you, the force at which you push against the slope will decrease?

Thanks and look forward to your reply.
 
simpleton said:
In this case, the slope now has velocity and is moving away from the block. If it is moving away from the block, shouldn't the normal force (repulsion of the electrons) decrease too, because as the slope is moving away from you, the force at which you push against the slope will decrease?

Thanks and look forward to your reply.

The problem states that everything is frictionless so there is not much use for thinking of electromagnetic forces.

The thing is that the block is also moving towards the slope (although a different region of the slope) it falls because of its weight so at any time the distance between the block and the surface of the slope is the same (for the purpose of this problem the distance is 0). So the normal force can be considered constant.
 
Hmm, I guess that does make sense.

However, why then is the normal force not mg*cos x? If the slope is stationary can cannot move, that would have been the normal reaction force. Why is the normal force not mg*cos x if the slope can move (I think it will be smaller than mg*cos x)?
 
simpleton said:
However, why then is the normal force not mg*cos x?
Because the "weight" (downwards force) of the block = m(g-a), where a is the vertical rate of acceleration of the block (note both g and a should be negative values).
 
  • #10
Consider yourself on that moving inclined plane(non inertial frame)
now you will observe a normal force on the block which remains constant
Therefore during the motion the normal force on the block remains constant(inertial frame)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K