Walking on Ice: Small Steps for Safety

  • Thread starter Thread starter neelakash
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ice Safety
AI Thread Summary
Walking on ice requires taking small steps to minimize slipping due to low friction. Smaller steps increase the normal force, which helps maintain balance and stability while walking. The discussion highlights that effective friction is determined by the difference in forces between the back and front legs during movement. A smaller stride reduces the risk of falling by ensuring that the effective friction remains manageable. Overall, careful walking techniques on ice are essential for safety.
neelakash
Messages
491
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



While walking on ice,one should take small steps to avoid slipping.Because the smaller step ensures
(i)larger friction
(ii)smaller friction
(iii)larger normal force
(iv)smaller normal force

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



I have the following idea.While walking we put step such that frictional force by the ground helps us to proceed.Now,friction co-eff of ice being small,ice does not provide us with the friction---in other words,ice does not prevent our leg from slipping beyond our control.And we might fall.So,we make smaller,careful steps,avoiding hurry,so, that we get larger normal force,and we can safely proceed...

so,in my opinion, the correct result should be (i) and (iii).

But the answer given is (ii)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yeah, I agree with you. I don't see how smaller friction causes less slipping.
 
First I will quote my problem:

While walking on ice,one should take small steps to avoid slipping.Because the smaller step ensures
(i)larger friction
(ii)smaller friction
(iii)larger normal force
(iv)smaller normal force

Now,let us see how do we walk.I will cansider a man walking.His back leg pushes the ground back while his front leg (heel,to be specific) thrusts the ground forward.

So,the relative motion at the point of contact is backwards for back leg and forward for front leg.

Ground provides contact force at front and rear legs-these contact forces can be resolved to normal components and horizontal components.Horizontal components are known as friction.

So,friction acts forward for the back leg (f₁) and backward for the front leg (f₂).

The force equations would be: N₁+N₂ =mg
& f₁-f₂ =ma
As it turns out,it is not only the force equations that matter really.We are also to consider the torque equations.

Let the difference between the legs in equilibrium be 2L
Then,we have to have (N₁-N₂)L=(f₁-f₂)h where h is the CM height.

Clearly less L means less (f₁-f₂) [which is significant for walking].Note that it is not individually f₁ or, f₂ that counts.It is the (f₁-f₂) term that is significant.

So,less stride ensures less "effective" friction...

In ice, the term (f₁-f₂) is very small,so,for safe walking L should be less.I mean,less stride ensures the proper condition of walking...

And,lastly,I will say something why do people fall while walking on ice.I may neglect friction which--->0.
Then,(N₁-N₂)L=0 and N₁=N₂
Let the man lift his back leg from ice floor while walking.Then,only the torque -N₂L is working on him that makes him fall facing the heaven...and what if he stands and then starts to walk?

in that case,there is nothing to drive him forward.I already assumed friction absent...

So,if he tries to proceed,he will fall according to first law...
 
That link really does not help too much.And I think my explanation is OK.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Struggling to make relation between elastic force and height'
Hello guys this is what I tried so far. I used the UTS to calculate the force it needs when the rope tears. My idea was to make a relationship/ function that would give me the force depending on height. Yeah i couldnt find a way to solve it. I also thought about how I could use hooks law (how it was given to me in my script) with the thought of instead of having two part of a rope id have one singular rope from the middle to the top where I could find the difference in height. But the...
Back
Top