inkliing Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 This isn't homework. I'm reviewing physics after many years of neglect. As with most of my posts, I made this problem up. Let object A have mass [latex]m_A[/latex] and object B have mass [latex]m_B[/latex]. One of A's surfaces is flat, as is one of B's. These flat surfaces are in contact and slide relative to each other in a straight line for a distance, x, experiencing kinetic friction. The kinetic friction, of magnitude f, is constant and is the only force acting on A or B in the direction of motion, and the only other forces acting on A and B are the normal forces pressing the surfaces together. The normal forces are assumed to be equal and opposite, so that the only acceleration of the objects is in the direction of friction. No net force acts on the center of mass. During a finite time interval, the speed of each surface relative to the other decreases from [latex]v_i[/latex] to [latex]v_f[/latex] due to friction. The nonconservative work done by each surface on the other is [latex]W_{noncons} = -fx[/latex] since each surface experiences the same displacement and the magnitude of the frictional force exerted by each surface on the other is the same since the two frictional forces comprise a force/reaction force pair. Therefore the change in kinetic energy of A, [latex]\Delta K_A[/latex] as seen from B's restframe is equal to the change in kinetic energy of B, [latex]\Delta K_B[/latex], as seen from A's restframe, since we are assuming that no other forces accelerate the objects. Therefore [latex]\frac{1}{2}m_A v_{f}^{2} - \frac{1}{2}m_A v_{i}^{2} = \Delta K_A = \Delta K_B = \frac{1}{2}m_B v_{f}^{2} - \frac{1}{2}m_B v_{i}^{2} \Rightarrow m_A = m_B[/latex], an absurd result. Something's wrong and it's driving me crazy! Please help me find the error in this reasoning, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Let object A have mass and object B have mass . One of A's surfaces is flat, as is one of B's. These flat surfaces are in contact and slide relative to each other in a straight line for a distance, x, experiencing kinetic friction. The kinetic friction, of magnitude f, is constant and is the only force acting on A or B in the direction of motion, and the only other forces acting on A and B are the normal forces pressing the surfaces together. The normal forces are assumed to be equal and opposite, so that the only acceleration of the objects is in the direction of friction. No net force acts on the center of mass. That's not possible. There must be forces acting on A an B in or against the direction of motion, other than friction. Edited January 10, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md65536 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 That's not possible. There must be forces acting on A an B in or against the direction of motion, other than friction. Why isn't it possible? If A and B have an initial relative velocity, and are slowed by friction while in contact, what other force acts in the line of motion? Therefore the change in kinetic energy of A, [latex]\Delta K_A[/latex] as seen from B's restframe is equal to the change in kinetic energy of B, [latex]\Delta K_B[/latex], as seen from A's restframe, since we are assuming that no other forces accelerate the objects.I'm not sure, but speaking of "A's rest frame" and B's sounds suspicious. Each changes velocity, so which rest frame are you talking about? Before, or after the acceleration? From an arbitrarily chosen rest frame, if m_A != m_B, then A and B don't have an identical change in velocity relative to the observer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I agree with md65536. Neither A nor B remain in a single inertial frame, and KE is not invariant. That's where the trouble is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Why isn't it possible? If A and B have an initial relative velocity Good point. Further KE is not a function of relative velocity. Edited January 10, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) The nonconservative work done by each surface When one group of molecules (solid state object A) collide with other group of molecules (solid state object B), one gives energy to the other, heating it. Conservation of energy happens at quantum scale. When your hands are cold, you are starting rubbing one on the other hand, and feeling hot between them. Edited January 11, 2014 by Sensei Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkliing Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 Thanks! A and B's rest frames are not inertial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now