Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose we have a triangle with mass M as shown: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Triangle_ABC_with_Sides_a_b_c.png

Clearly, the normal force of from the system to the table is $Mg$.

But what if we added two blocks of equal mass m on sides BC and AC of triangle ABC? What would the normal force from the system (=triangle plus two blocks) to the table be then? (assuming all contact surfaces are frictionless, so the two blocks immediately start sliding off). Assume the triangle does not move on the surface it is on.

I believe the answer is $(2m+M)g$ but I am not sure if the two masses of mass $m$ that are sliding down the triangle affect the normal force in any way.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

The normal force would be $g(M + m(\cos^2 \theta_1 + \cos^2\theta_2))$

where the $\theta$'s represent the angles at the bottom of the triangles.

This is because the force on the object must be equal to the acceleration of its center of mass. The center of mass of the triangle-plus-blocks system is accelerating down, so the net force on it is down. The normal force is therefore weaker than gravity.

I got the precise numbers because I memorized that a block sliding frictionlessly down a slope has acceleration $g\sin\theta$. The vertical component of their accelerations is $g\sin^2\theta$. This is the amount that the normal force is reduced, so each block contributes an amount $mg - mg\sin^2\theta = mg \cos^2\theta$ to the normal force.

share|improve this answer
    
I'll have to disagree with that. The correct expression for the normal force should be $(M+m(\cos^2 \theta_1 + \cos^2 \theta_2))g$. To see that your expression is incorrect, put $\theta_1 = \theta_2 = 0^{\circ}$: it gives $Mg$ instead of $(M+2m)g$. –  Alraxite Jan 19 '13 at 0:17
    
@Alraxite Your expression is nonsense, but mine was also wrong, so I'll update it. –  Mark Eichenlaub Jan 19 '13 at 0:33
    
Your new expression is incorrect as well. The one I've given is correct. Would you mind explaining how did you arrive at that? –  Alraxite Jan 19 '13 at 0:43
    
Yeah, I made a mistake because I didn't stop to work it out carefully. Sorry to have been so dismissive, and thank you for pointing it out. –  Mark Eichenlaub Jan 19 '13 at 0:51

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.