Understanding Friction Force: Net Force of X-Component Explained

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the net force acting on a moving puck, specifically why the net force of the x-component is equal to the negative kinetic friction force (-f(k)). It clarifies that once the puck is in motion, it continues moving due to inertia, and the only force acting against its motion is the kinetic friction. The net force being -f(k) indicates that the puck is indeed accelerating, as it is the sole force acting on it. The conversation emphasizes that if there were another force counteracting -f(k), the net force would be zero, not -f(k). Understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping the principles of motion and friction.
taegello
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me why

net Force of x-component = -f(k) in a moving puck? I don't get how the net Force of x-component be just the kinetic friction force. What about the force that the puck is using to be actually moving? shouldn't that force be included in the net Force of x-component?

When an object is still on an incline,
net Force of x-component = (mg)(sin theta) - f(s) = 0

on when an object is moving, shouldn't it be something minus f(k)?

Any help would be greatly appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The puck does not "use" any force just to be moving. Once it starts moving it will continue moving on its own (as long as any friction acting on it is compensated for by another force, of course).
 
but if net Fx = - f(k) the puck shouldn't be moving or at least moving with constant accelleration? isn't this saying that ma= -f(k)? if the opposing forces are the same, how can the object be moving? any force of ma will be canceled out by -f(k)

I am so lost...
 
Last edited:
taegello said:
but if net Fx = - f(k) the puck shouldn't be moving or at least moving with constant accelleration? isn't this saying that ma= -f(k)?
If the net force Fx = -f(k), then the puck is accelerating.
if the opposing forces are the same, how can the object be moving? any force of ma will be canceled out by -f(k)
(1) There's no opposing force. -f(k) is the only (or the net) force acting.
(2) "ma" is not a force, it's mass*acceleration. Newton's 2nd law tells us that the net force on an object will equal ma: ∑F = ma.
(3) If another force acted to cancel out the -f(k) force, then the net force would be zero, not -f(k).
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top