Newtons Laws car deacceleration

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the highest possible deceleration of a 1900 kg car on a wet road, using the coefficients of static and kinetic friction. The initial confusion stems from whether to apply static or kinetic friction, with clarification that static friction is appropriate unless the tires skid. The force of friction is calculated using the static friction coefficient, resulting in a force of 4059.16 N. The net force leads to a deceleration of approximately 2.1364 m/s², but it is emphasized that the sign convention should be carefully considered, as friction opposes motion. Properly defining the coordinate system and forces is crucial for accurate calculations in problems involving Newton's laws.
Beanie
Messages
32
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A 1900 kg car moves along a horizontal road at speed v0 = 23.6 m/s. The road is wet, so the static friction coefficient between the tires and the road is only μs = 0.218 and the kinetic friction coefficient is even lower, μk = 0.1526.

The acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s2 .

Assume: No aerodynamic forces; g = 9.8 m/s2, forward is the positive direction.

What is the highest possible deceleration of the car under such conditions?

Answer in units of m/s2.

Homework Equations


Ff=mu*Fn
Sum of all Forces = ma

The Attempt at a Solution


m = 1900kg
Vi=23.6m/s = Fp
mus=0.218
muk=0.1526
ay=9.8m/s

Fn=(9.8)(1900)=18620
Ff=muk*Fn
Ff=(0.1526)(18620)
Ff=2841.412N

Sum of all forces=ma
Ff+Fp=ma
(2841.412)+Fp=(1900)a

I ran into many problems with this. First of all, in step 1 when using the Ff=mu*Fn I didn't know whether to use the coefficient of static friction or the coefficient of kinetic friction. I assumed it was the coefficient of kinetic friction because the car was already in motion. Is this right?

Also, when using the F=ma equation, I was trying to use all of the forces in the x direction to find the acceleration in the x direction. This meant that only the force of friction and the force of the object moving to the right were acting upon the object for this equation. I had already calculated the force of friction, however I couldn't calculate the force of the object moving towards the right, because I only had the initial velocity of the object moving towards the right and you can't convert velocity to force. Where do I go next from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Beanie said:
I didn't know whether to use the coefficient of static friction or the coefficient of kinetic friction. I assumed it was the coefficient of kinetic friction because the car was already in motion. Is this right?

This is a common confusion. The term 'static' and 'kinetic' in the case of friction refers to whether there is relative motion between the surfaces in contact. Unless the car is skidding the friction between the surfaces would be static.

Beanie said:
This meant that only the force of friction and the force of the object moving to the right were acting upon the object for this equation. I had already calculated the force of friction, however I couldn't calculate the force of the object moving towards the right, because I only had the initial velocity of the object moving towards the right and you can't convert velocity to force.

This is another common confusion. Around Newton's time people used the word force to mean various things, but the language has been cleared up. Objects do not have force by virtue of their motion - they have momentum. Forces change momentum. If the surfaces are horizontal then the net horizontal force will simply be due to friction.
 
Beanie said:
I ran into many problems with this. First of all, in step 1 when using the Ff=mu*Fn I didn't know whether to use the coefficient of static friction or the coefficient of kinetic friction. I assumed it was the coefficient of kinetic friction because the car was already in motion. Is this right?

The car is in motion, yes, but what about the tires relative to the road surface?
 
brainpushups said:
This is a common confusion. The term 'static' and 'kinetic' in the case of friction refers to whether there is relative motion between the surfaces in contact. Unless the car is skidding the friction between the surfaces would be static.
This is another common confusion. Around Newton's time people used the word force to mean various things, but the language has been cleared up. Objects do not have force by virtue of their motion - they have momentum. Forces change momentum. If the surfaces are horizontal then the net horizontal force will simply be due to friction.

Okay, this makes more sense.

So...

Ff=mus*Fn
Ff=0.218*18620
Ff=4059.16

And then because sum of all forces is the force of friction,

4059.16=(1900)a
a=2.1364m/s^2
 
Looks okay. One comment I would like to point out because I'm guessing you haven't thought of it: You have given the acceleration a positive value (which is fine), but recognize that means the initial velocity must then be given a negative value. For any puzzle involving Newton's laws I would highly recommend making a clear choice of coordinate system in your initial drawing and labeling each of the forces with the appropriate sign. I have a feeling that if you were to do this carefully you would probably give the object a positive velocity and, since friction opposes the direction of motion, a corresponding negative sign for the force of friction (and hence negative acceleration).
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K