Work-Energy Theorem and Friction

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the work-energy theorem in a scenario involving two blocks, one moving vertically and the other horizontally, with friction considered. The original poster is attempting to reconcile their calculated coefficient of kinetic friction with the value provided in the textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster presents their calculations and expresses confusion over a discrepancy with the textbook answer. Participants suggest considering the balance of forces and the entire system's energy. Questions arise regarding the assumptions made about the forces acting on the blocks and the interpretation of the work done.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning assumptions and exploring different interpretations of the work-energy theorem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the correct expression for the change in kinetic energy, and the original poster indicates progress in understanding the problem.

Contextual Notes

The problem specifies the initial conditions of the blocks, including their masses and velocities, which are critical for the calculations. There is an ongoing discussion about the direction of forces and the implications of negative acceleration in the context of the problem.

Argonaut
Messages
45
Reaction score
24
Homework Statement
[Young & Freedman - University Physics 13th ed, exercise 6.87]
Consider the system shown in Fig. P6.86. The rope and pulley have negligible mass, and the pulley is frictionless. Initially the 6.00-kg block is moving downward and the 8.00-kg block is moving to the right, both with a speed of 0.900 m/s. The blocks come to rest after moving 2.00 m. Use the work–energy theorem to calculate the coefficient of kinetic friction between the 8.00-kg block and the tabletop.
Relevant Equations
Work-energy theorem
Kinetic friction formula
IMG_20230421_092317__01.jpg


My final answer is different from the official one in the back of the book, and I can't figure out what I did wrong. This is my attempt:

Let block 1 be the vertically moving block and let block 2 be the horizontally moving one.

Also, let ##m_1 = 6.00 ~\rm{kg}##, ##m_2 = 8.00 ~\rm{kg}##, ##v_0 = 0.900 ~\rm{m/s}##, and ##d = 2.00 ~\rm{m}##. The target variable is ##\mu_k##.

According to the work-energy theorem, the total work done on block 2 is ##W_{tot}= \Delta K = K_f - K_i = 0 -K_i = -\frac{1}{2}m_2v_0^2##.

IMG_20230421_090911__01.jpg

Alternatively, since the forces acting on block 2 are constant, we also have ##W_{tot} = \Sigma F_x d = (T - f_k)d = (m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d## (if the direction of displacement is the positive direction).

So then we have

$$-\frac{1}{2}m_2v_0^2 = (m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d$$

Rearranging to express ##\mu_k##, we obtain

$$\mu_k = \frac{m_1}{m_2} + \frac{v_0^2}{2dg} = \frac{6.00 ~\rm{kg}}{8.00 ~\rm{kg}} + \frac{(0.900 ~\rm{m/s})^2}{2(2.00 ~\rm{m})(9.80 ~\rm{m/s^2})} = 0.771 $$

However, the book gives ##0.786##. Where did I mess up?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Argonaut said:
Alternatively, since the forces acting on block 2 are constant, we also have ##W_{tot} = \Sigma F_x d = (T - f_k)d = (m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d## (if the direction of displacement is the positive direction).

However, the book gives ##0.786##. Where did I mess up?
Consider the balance of forces on m1 and its resulting acceleration to find T.

But the easier way is to consider the whole of system energy.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: nasu and Argonaut
haruspex said:
Consider the balance of forces on m1 and its resulting acceleration to find T.

But the easier way is to consider the whole of system energy.
Right, so since there is acceleration, Newton's First Law does not apply, and ##T \neq m_1g ##, in fact ## T > m_1g ##, is that correct?

In which case, I'm probably better off considering the whole system instead of block 2.
 
Argonaut said:
, in fact T>m1g, is that correct?
Does m1 rise?
 
haruspex said:
Does m1 rise?
It does not, but its descent is 'slowing', so there is negative acceleration (supposing the positive direction is the direction of displacement). I thought that would mean that the force acting in the negative direction is greater than the one acting in the positive direction.
 
Argonaut said:
It does not, but its descent is 'slowing', so there is negative acceleration (supposing the positive direction is the direction of displacement). I thought that would mean that the force acting in the negative direction is greater than the one acting in the positive direction.
Sorry… skipping between threads, I forgot that it is initially descending.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Argonaut
haruspex said:
Sorry… skipping between threads, I forgot that it is initially descending.
No worries, and thanks for the help. Looking forward to my lunch break to have another go at this exercise :biggrin:
 
The problem says
Argonaut said:
Initially the 6.00-kg block is moving downward and the 8.00-kg block is moving to the right, both with a speed of 0.900 m/s.
You say $$-\frac{1}{2}m_2v_0^2 = (m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d.$$
What should ##\Delta K## be?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Argonaut and erobz
kuruman said:
The problem says

You say $$-\frac{1}{2}m_2v_0^2 = (m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d.$$
What should ##\Delta K## be?
Thanks for the tip. I think I've got it now - at least I've managed to reproduce the correct value.

So on the one hand ##W_{tot} = \Delta K = K_f - K_i = 0 - \frac{1}{2}(m_1+m_2)v_0^2##.

On the other hand, treating the blocks, the rope and the pulley as a system, there are two forces doing work on the system. So we have ## W_{tot} = \Sigma F d = (w_1 - f_k)d = (m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d ##.

So then equating the two we obtain

$$(m_1g - \mu_km_2g)d = - \frac{1}{2}(m_1+m_2)v_0^2$$

$$\mu_k = \frac{m_1}{m_2} + \frac{(m_1+m_2)v_0^2}{2dm_2g} = \frac{6.00 ~\rm{kg}}{8.00 ~\rm{kg}} + \frac{(6.00 ~\rm{kg} + 8.00 ~\rm{kg})(0.900 ~\rm{m/s})^2}{2(2.00 ~\rm{m})(8.00 ~\rm{kg})(9.80 ~\rm{m/s^2})} = 0.786$$
 
  • #10
That is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Argonaut

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K