- #1
jon4444
- 68
- 1
I"m wondering, at the abstract level, why different mathematics is used to calculate the Normal Force in an inclined plane versus a banked turn (which a vehicle is driving around).
For an inclined plane, the standard approach is take weight and resolved into parallel and perpendicular vectors, giving mg* cos for normal force. For banked turn, the standard approach is take the Normal force, and calculate the component that's anti-parallel to weight, and then "infer" the Normal Force is mg / cos.
I'm assuming the Physics behind this is that the Normal Force in incline plane is solely due to gravity, while in banked turn it changes due to the circular motion of the vehicle.
I'm wondering if this is correct and how one justifies the different mathematical approaches? (I.e., how does one decide which vector to resolve into components and why wouldn't the vertical component of the Normal Force in a banked turn just be mg--what other tangible forces could one speak of in that situation)?
For an inclined plane, the standard approach is take weight and resolved into parallel and perpendicular vectors, giving mg* cos for normal force. For banked turn, the standard approach is take the Normal force, and calculate the component that's anti-parallel to weight, and then "infer" the Normal Force is mg / cos.
I'm assuming the Physics behind this is that the Normal Force in incline plane is solely due to gravity, while in banked turn it changes due to the circular motion of the vehicle.
I'm wondering if this is correct and how one justifies the different mathematical approaches? (I.e., how does one decide which vector to resolve into components and why wouldn't the vertical component of the Normal Force in a banked turn just be mg--what other tangible forces could one speak of in that situation)?