Timeline for Why doesn't limiting friction contradict Newton's Third Law?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 5, 2017 at 15:27 | vote | accept | Pancake_Senpai | ||
| Jul 5, 2017 at 13:08 | answer | added | Steeven | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 13:07 | comment | added | Philip Wood | All the forces in your diagram appear to be acting on one object, the sphere. How can you expect Newton's third law (which concerns forces on different bodies) to be relevant – let alone contradicted? | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 13:05 | answer | added | Javier | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:57 | comment | added | Pancake_Senpai | Yes the object is in motion now that the 30N force is applied. It has acceleration = $a$ in the direction shown on the diagram. Prior to that ithe particle would have been at rest because the net force would have been 0N. | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:51 | comment | added | Steeven | Is the object moving so that we are talking about kinetic friction? | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:50 | comment | added | Pancake_Senpai | I've amended the question. Sorry for the confusion. | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | Pancake_Senpai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added an explanation of what each force letter stands for.
|
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:47 | comment | added | Pancake_Senpai | Sorry. I completely forgot to label the forces - I will do so now. | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:40 | comment | added | Steeven | What is $Fr$? What is the $R$ in the $R\mu$ term? By the way, it is a bit unfortunate to use N as a dummy number to show examples, when also normal force is $N$ and the unit of Newton's is $\mathrm N$. I am getting a bit confused while reading. | |
| Jul 5, 2017 at 12:24 | history | asked | Pancake_Senpai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |