Motion question (1 Viewer)

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
oh ok sorry i wasnt thinking straight yeah it works out :)

Just this last one if u have time :)
Find magnitude of breaking force to stop car of mass 1.2T in 20m when its travelling 60k/hr. down an incline of angle arcin(1/40)
 

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Find magnitude of breaking force to stop car of mass 1.2T in 20m when its travelling 60k/hr. down an incline of angle arcin(1/40)
A couple of ways of doing this:

a) Using the standard Newton's equations (I personally don't like this method, but it's the "official" way of doing it), this is the way you'll have to answer the question in an exam:

m = 1.2T = 1200 Kg
v = 60 km/h = 50/3 m/s
To overcome gravity, a force of mg*sin@ = 294 N is required (up the slope).
In order to slow the car down in 20m, an additional acceleration of (v^2 - u^2)/ 2s = 125/18 m/s^2 is required
-> additional force required =
= 125/18 * 1200 N
25000/3 N (up the slope).
Adding these two forces gives 294 + 25000/3 N = 25882/3 N = 8627.33 N (up the slope)

b) Using the work-energy theorem (not in the syllabus, but simpler & more elegant in my opinion):

The mechanical energy (E) of the car is the sum of the kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy (E = (1/2)*mv^2 + mglsin@), so the initial mechanical energy is E = 500000/3 + 5880 J = 517640 J (taking the bottom of the 20m ramp to be the level of zero potential). The final mechanical energy is zero, so the force required to stop the car is (change in mechanical energy)/distance = 517640/20 N = 25882/3 N = 8627.33 N (up the slope)

You probably need to understand the first method, but not the second.
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Yeah i did what u did in the 1st one but they said answer was 8030N

EDIT: And Also im thinking the Retardation Force 'R' encompasses any friction force? So we dont have to treat them separately ?
 
Last edited:

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Yeah i did what u did in the 1st one but they said answer was 8030N
Not sure but unless there's some mistake in our working out, then it's a mistake in the book.

And Also im thinking the Retardation Force 'R' encompasses any friction force?
Yes.

So we dont have to treat them separately ?
Treat what separately? You have to treat gravitational force separately to friction, but in that truck question above you aren't required to treat all the friction forces (e.g. air resistance, tyre friction etc) separately since you're given a literal value for the "total resistance" (i.e. total friction), namely 2000N.
 

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
I meant because friction was encompassed under the Retardation force, we just treat the Retardation force soley on its own, not having to break it up to look at friction etc.

That question had a part A) which said the same thing except on a horizontal road in lieu of the incline. I also didn't get their answer for this part (which was 8330N). Another mistake?
 

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
That question had a part A) which said the same thing except on a horizontal road in lieu of the incline. I also didn't get their answer for this part (which was 8330N). Another mistake?
I got 8333.33 N, so that answer is correct (rounded off to the nearest 10 N). Same working out as before, but now take @ = 0 rather than @ = arcsin(1/40).
 

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
This also reinforces our answer of 8627.33 N for the case where it goes down the hill, since 8627.33 N > 8330 N, which makes sense (whereas 8030 N < 8330 N). Surely it would take a bigger braking force to stop the car when it is going down hill, than when it's on level ground.
 

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
We can say first without any retardation, we assume it to be constant velocity and thus zero net force and thus the thrust force = friction force. Now when the retardation force kicks in, at that moment the net force would be the Thurst force - Friction force - Retardation force. But we cant say now that thrust force and friction force are equal because we dont have netforce 0 anymore (there is a deceleration)?

Or actually is it because we can say that the deceleration is purely brought about because of this retardation force and thus the force pair of thurst and friction will always remain in an equilibrium (i.e. zero) And then we just go from there?

Yeah i got 8333.33N as well, just wanted to clarify this, thanks mate :)

EDIT: sorry if i previously asked this, but how do we say for that earlier question that the thurst force of the truck going down the hill is zero? :(
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
For the thurst force, what lets us say its zero

EDIT: How come u deleted that post u just made
 
Last edited:

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
EDIT: How come u deleted that post u just made
Sorry I thought I misread your post at first.

We can say first without any retardation, we assume it to be constant velocity and thus zero net force and thus the thrust force = friction force.
Are you talking in general or just about a particular case? In general, you can't assume an object to have (zero EDITED out) constant velocity if there's no retardation force (e.g. a rocket fired far away in outer space).

the deceleration is purely brought about because of this retardation force
Yes.

and thus the force pair of thurst and friction will always remain in an equilibrium (i.e. zero)
Not necessarily, the thrust may exceed the friction force (e.g. a car accelerating on a rough road, with tyres making frictional ground contact) or may be less than the frictional force (e.g. a rocket being gently fired downward towards Earth). EDIT: Assuming there's no other forces, the thrust force and friction will only remain in equilibrium with eachother if the car is travelling at constant velocity.

but how do we say for that earlier question that the thurst force of the truck going down the hill is zero?
Can't assume this.
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
But we didn't factor it in then (thurst force) in any of our working? Im a bit confused now O.O
 

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
wogboy said:
Are you talking in general or just about a particular case? In general, you can't assume an object to have zero velocity if there's no retardation force (e.g. a rocket fired far away in outer space).
I didnt say zero velocity, i was just saying prior to any braking, if we assume it to be constant velocity then there would be no acceleration thus no net force. But we now have three forces before braking, Thurst force, graivty along the plane, friction force ??
 

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
But we didn't factor it in then (thurst force) in any of our working? Im a bit confused now O.O
Which question are you talking about? The truck question, or the car question?

I didnt say zero velocity,
Whoops I meant constant velocity, correction made.
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
The one where its going down the incline and we havbe to find magnitude of braking force. I cant remember any more whether its car or truck :p

EDIT: It was a car
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Oh i was assuming we could say it was constant velocity because for like the very first question you took it as constant and i was unaware before that we could say that....sorry my thoughts are all over the place
 

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
Oh i was assuming we could say it was constant velocity because for like the very first question you took it as constant and i was unaware before that we could say that....sorry my thoughts are all over the place
Cool now I don't have to explain the rest eh? :)
 

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
So constant velocity means we have no thurst force? If i said ok no acceleration from the engine so F = ma = 0 wouldnt i be saying the net thurst force iz zero? not the actual thurst force

EDIT: its ok for us to assume its constant thought, isnt it ?
 
Last edited:

wogboy

Terminator
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
653
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2002
No, constant velocity means no NET force, it doesn't mean no THRUST force. The thrust force may be cancelled by the friction force (e.g. a car driving at constant velocity, on a road with friction). Also the thrust might be balanced by gravity (e.g. car going up a hill at constant velocity, assuming no friction), or it might be balanced by both gravity and friction.
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Ok so the sum of the three forces acting on it while its jsut driving down the incline is zero, which gives F<sub>T</sub> = F<sub>F</sub> - (mg/40) . So when the braking occurs, the braking force will be the only 'external' force and thus the net force will just be R ?
 
Last edited:

CrashOveride

Active Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,488
Location
Havana
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2006
Oh i get it now, when we brake we take our foot off the accelerator so the thurst force is zero :p Ok i get all this now :)

Final thing i promise :) If we have a mass of 10kg pulled along the horinztonal by a chain making an angle of 30degrees with the horinztonal, tesntion in chain is 50N, we wana find the magnitude of normal reaction. Ans: 75N. I think im taking the Normal as the wrong thing thats why im not getting their answer.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top