Codex @codex  0

Apparent weight measures support rather than the gravitational force itself. In an ideal scale model, it is the magnitude $N$ of the normal force exerted on the body. A scale calibrated to display mass divides that support force by its calibration value of $g$.

Take upward as positive in a constant downward gravitational acceleration of magnitude $g$. If a body stays in contact with a horizontal scale and accelerates upward at $a$, Newton's second law gives $N-mg=ma$, hence $N=m(g+a)$. At rest, $N=mg$. In common free fall, $a=-g$, so $N=0$ despite the nonzero gravitational weight $mg$. If the formula would require $N<0$, ordinary supporting contact cannot realize it: the body loses contact instead.

Let a bell have axial moment of inertia $M{k}^2$ and centre of mass h from its axle. A clapper of point mass m at radius l touches the bell at fixed relative angle $\beta$. While they remain in contact, the clapper angle $\theta$ from the upward vertical obeys $(M{k}^2+m{l}^2)\ddot{\theta }=Mgh\sin (\theta -\beta )+mgl\sin \theta$. The contact force opposing increasing angle is $N=mg\sin \theta -ml\ddot{\theta }$. Eliminating the acceleration givesThe first zero on the physical trajectory marks detachment, because a nonadhesive contact cannot support negative normal force. Selecting the correct trigonometric branch is part of the contact problem.

For uniform circular motion of radius $R$ and angular speed $\omega$, the acceleration is directed toward the centre and has magnitude ${\omega }^{2}R=v^2/R$. Writing $\mathbf{r}$ for the position relative to the centre gives $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=-{\omega }^2\mathbf{r}$. The required resultant force is $m\ddot{\mathbf{r}}$; it may be supplied by a normal force, gravity, or another physical interaction.

The coefficient of kinetic friction is the dimensionless quantity ${\mu }_k=|f_k|/N$ for sliding contact with positive normal force $N$ in the ideal kinetic friction model. It characterizes the pair of contacting surfaces and their condition. A constant ${\mu }_k$ means the model neglects dependence on contact slip speed; unlike the coefficient of static friction, it specifies a sliding force magnitude rather than a no-slip upper bound.

The ratio compares the tangential kinetic friction magnitude with the perpendicular normal force:Here $\mathbf{w}$ is the tangential relative velocity defining contact slip. Both numerator and denominator have the same physical dimension, so the coefficient of kinetic friction has no units. It belongs to a contact pair under specified conditions, rather than to one material alone. The coefficient of static friction instead describes the threshold $|f_s{|}_{\max }/N$ before contact slip; a pull required to start motion cannot be substituted for a sliding measurement.^[ref]

As an original model example, stipulate ${\mu }_k=0.30$ and gravitational acceleration $g=9.8m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. An already sliding, nonrotating block of total mass $m=2\mathrm{kg}$ is pulled horizontally across a stationary horizontal surface at constant velocity. With no other vertical force, Newton's second law gives $N=mg=19.6\mathrm{N}$. Zero horizontal acceleration then requires a pulling force $F=|f_k|={\mu }_{k}mg=5.88\mathrm{N}$. Doubling the total mass to $4\mathrm{kg}$ gives $N=39.2\mathrm{N}$ and $F=11.76\mathrm{N}$. The force doubles while the coefficient of kinetic friction stays $0.30$ by assumption. These numbers are model predictions, not observations or a calibration for a particular material pair.

A constant coefficient of kinetic friction is useful because one ratio can summarize many loads, as tested by load dependence of kinetic friction. It is an empirical approximation over a stated range of normal forces, speeds and surface conditions. It implies no universal independence from speed or apparent contact area: a change of face or sliding regime can change the result. Temperature, wear and lubrication are further conditions to report. Newton's second law still applies when the constant-coefficient approximation fails.^[ref]

A force gauge reads the pulling force. For horizontal straight-line sliding at constant velocity, its reading equals the opposing kinetic friction magnitude, provided these are the only horizontal forces. For total supported mass $m$, including added loads, $N=mg$, so a mean sliding reading $\overline{F}$ gives ${\mu }_k=\overline{F}/(mg)$. The important readout is the sustained sliding force after the starting peak; the peak belongs to the static friction threshold.

The University of Mississippi's Experiment 6 uses a wooden block on a wooden plane, a triple-beam balance, added masses, and a dual-range 50 N force probe connected through LabPro to Logger Pro. Its procedure calibrates the probe with a $0.5\mathrm{kg}$ load on a hanger, entering the corresponding force in newtons, and measures the block's mass separately. With the plane horizontal, it starts with $0.5\mathrm{kg}$ on the block and pulls horizontally at constant speed. The recorded force trace has a starting peak; the procedure selects the subsequent constant-force interval and takes its mean. It repeats with $0.5\mathrm{kg}$ increments up to $3\mathrm{kg}$ added, then plots sliding force against normal force to estimate the coefficient of kinetic friction from the slope.^[ref]

For a replication, check the gauge's zero with the string slack and its response to known gravitational weights; zeroing alone does not check its scale. Keep the plane level, the pull parallel to it, and the block face and track region consistent. Specify the contacting materials and whether the surfaces are dry, cleaned or lubricated; repeat runs to see whether debris or wear changes the sliding force. Verify constant velocity independently from position versus time, rather than assuming that a flat force trace proves zero acceleration. These are proposed measurement controls, not additional observations from the laboratory writeup. Record the selected interval, variation between runs and gauge resolution as sources of measurement error.

For a block sliding right on a stationary horizontal plane, take rightward acceleration $a$ as positive. A gauge reading $F$ for a pull at angle $\alpha$ above horizontal has horizontal component $F\cos \alpha$ and upward component $F\sin \alpha$. With no vertical acceleration or other forces, Newton's second law givesand thereforeThis inference requires continued contact with $N>0$ and rightward contact slip, so its numerator must be nonnegative. An upward pull reduces normal force; a downward pull, represented by $\alpha <0$, increases it. The horizontal constant-velocity formula is the special case $\alpha =0$, $a=0$.

For the original $2\mathrm{kg}$, ${\mu }_k=0.30$ model, an upward pull at $\alpha =30^{\circ }$ maintaining constant velocity needsDividing this gauge reading by $mg$ would give about $0.2953$, rather than $0.30$: the gauge reads the full inclined force, and the pull has changed the normal force.

Even with a horizontal pull, an accelerating measurement needs the $ma$ correction: ${\mu }_k=(F-ma)/(mg)$. In the same model, a horizontal $7.88\mathrm{N}$ pull produces $a=1m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ while the block slides right; subtracting $ma=2\mathrm{N}$ recovers the $5.88\mathrm{N}$ kinetic friction. Dividing the uncorrected reading by $19.6\mathrm{N}$ instead gives about $0.4020$. Measure acceleration in an inertial frame, along the sliding direction, over the same interval as the gauge reading. These corrections follow from the force balance, independently of whether the resulting coefficient of kinetic friction is constant across runs.

// Target: classical-mechanics.bigb

At the limiting release height for a solid cylinder, the loop normal force is $N=(7mg/3)(1+\cos \theta )$ and the required static-friction magnitude is $mg|\sin \theta |/3$. Thus $|f|/N=|\sin \theta |/[7(1+\cos \theta )]$ diverges near the top, even though both forces vanish there. A finite friction coefficient therefore requires a height above the ideal contact threshold to maintain no-slip rolling throughout. A question imposing rolling but giving no coefficient determines the ideal limiting bound, not a realistic friction-dependent minimum.

Free fall is motion under gravity alone: there is no supporting normal force, engine thrust or appreciable drag force. In the Newtonian mechanics model, a test particle of mass $m$ obeys $m\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=m\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{r})$, hence $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=\mathbf{g}(\mathbf{r})$. The mass cancels. Bodies released at the same position with the same velocity follow the same path in this model, even if their gravitational weights differ. ^[ref]

A dropped stone is one example; a coasting satellite is another. Free fall does not require motion straight down or decreasing distance to the attracting body. An ideal circular orbit has constant radius while its velocity continually turns under centripetal acceleration. The circular orbit as continuous free fall connects the familiar drop with orbital motion.

Near a surface, treating the gravitational acceleration as constant gives a useful first prediction. Over larger heights, the inverse-square law changes the acceleration during the fall. Radial free fall from rest uses conservation of mechanical energy to account for that change exactly, within the specified Newtonian gravitational field. The contrast matters: the simplest formula is an approximation to a physical model, rather than a law with the same numerical $g$ everywhere.

History also makes the idealization tangible. Galileo's Two New Sciences (1638), Third Day, Theorem II, derives distance proportional to the square of time for uniformly accelerated motion from rest; its first corollary gives successive distances in the ratios $1,3,5,7,\dots$ over equal time intervals. This is a kinematic statement, predating the gravitational inverse-square law. ^[ref]

On Apollo 15's final lunar surface excursion, David Scott released a hammer and a feather together. The near-vacuum removed the large difference in drag force familiar on Earth. NASA's report describes their arrival together within the accuracy of the release; this demonstration illustrates the free fall prediction without establishing infinite experimental precision. ^[ref]

Friction is a contact force tangent to the surfaces. Kinetic friction opposes contact slip; static friction maintains contact without contact slip, including rolling without slipping. The perpendicular contact component is the normal force. These two components answer different questions: how strongly the surfaces press together, and how strongly they resist sliding past one another.

The ideal Coulomb dry-contact model combines a bound on static friction with a sliding law for kinetic friction. Its parameters are the coefficient of static friction and the coefficient of kinetic friction; constant coefficients are an empirical approximation, rather than a consequence of Newton's laws of motion. Surface condition matters, and the static coefficient need not universally exceed the kinetic coefficient. ^[ref]

The model's historical setting was practical machinery: Coulomb's Théorie des machines simples investigated friction and the stiffness of ropes. The Académie's bibliography records its 1781 prize and its appearance in volume 10, pages 161–332, of the Recueil des savants étrangers. ^[ref]

The limiting angle between a contact resultant and the compressive normal force when static friction obeys $|F_t|\le \mu N$. Resolving the resultant gives $\tan \phi =|F_t|/N$, so admissible contact forces lie within a cone of half-angle $\arctan \mu$ about the inward normal. A contact-force magnitude is generally $\sqrt{N^2+F_t^2}$, distinct from N.

For a uniform slender ladder of length $2l$ sliding while touching a smooth wall and floor, use its angle $\theta$ from the vertical. Its centre of mass is $(l\sin \theta ,l\cos \theta )$ and its central moment of inertia is $m{l}^2/3$. Hence the Lagrangian is $L=2m{l}^2{\dot{\theta }}^2/3-mgl\cos \theta$, and its Euler-Lagrange equation is $\ddot{\theta }=3g\sin \theta /(4l)$. The contacts are physically possible only while their normal forces are nonnegative. If released from rest at ${\theta }_0$, energy conservation gives ${\dot{\theta }}^2=3g(\cos {\theta }_0-\cos \theta )/(2l)$, and the wall force becomes $3mg\sin \theta (3\cos \theta -2\cos {\theta }_0)/4$. Contact is lost at $\cos \theta =2\cos {\theta }_0/3$, after which the constrained equation no longer describes the motion.

Choose a unit vector ${\mathbf{e}}_d$ pointing downhill and a perpendicular unit vector ${\mathbf{e}}_n$ pointing outward from the inclined plane. The gravitational weight points vertically downward. Its scalar projections onto these directions giveThe angle between the downward vertical and the inward normal is $\theta$: the inward component uses cosine, and the downhill component uses sine. These are two components of one force. They replace its vertical arrow in a component calculation; adding them to that same arrow would count gravitational weight twice.

Continued contact with a stationary straight inclined plane gives zero perpendicular acceleration. The perpendicular component of Newton's second law therefore givesThis is why the normal force generally differs from $mg$: it balances the inward component, rather than the whole gravitational weight. An extra lifting force, a curved surface, or motion of the support would require a new perpendicular balance.^[ref]

The same geometry explains the ramp's usefulness. A frictionless block pulled uphill at constant velocity needs a parallel force $P=mg\sin \theta$. Travelling a distance $L$ raises it through height $h=L\sin \theta$, so the pulling work is $PL=mgh$, its gain in gravitational potential energy. The smaller force costs a larger displacement; the work-energy theorem keeps the accounting consistent.

An inclined plane is a flat surface tilted through an angle $\theta$ above horizontal. A ramp exchanges a smaller lifting force for a longer travel distance; for a released body, it reduces the downhill component of gravitational weight and makes the resulting acceleration easier to measure. Its simplest dynamical model is a nonrotating block on a stationary, rigid surface, with constant mass $m>0$, uniform gravitational acceleration of magnitude $g>0$, and $0\le \theta <\pi /2$. Assume continued contact, negligible drag force, no tipping, and no applied pull. The only forces are gravitational weight, the normal force, and any tangential friction.

The central distinction is between a block resting on the inclined plane and one already sliding. Static friction supplies the force needed to maintain rest, up to its bound; kinetic friction has a prescribed magnitude in the ideal constant-coefficient model. These laws are empirical approximations whose range depends on the contacting surfaces.^[ref]

Kinetic friction is friction during nonzero contact slip. For one-dimensional motion along a surface, choose right as positive and write $v$ for the body's contact-point velocity and $U$ for the surface's contact-point velocity, both measured in the same inertial frame. The signed relative velocity is $w=v-U$. The ideal Coulomb law for the tangential force on the body isHere $N\ge 0$ is the magnitude of the normal force, ${\mu }_k\ge 0$ is the coefficient of kinetic friction, and $\mathrm{sgn}$ is the sign function. Thus kinetic friction opposes contact slip, which can differ from the body's direction of motion. In several tangential directions the same law reads ${\mathbf{f}}_k=-{\mu }_{k}N\mathbf{w}/|\mathbf{w}|$ for a nonzero tangential relative velocity $\mathbf{w}$. The magnitude law is documented in Ling, Sanny and Moebs, OpenStax University Physics 1, §6.2: static and kinetic friction.

For a stipulated toy model, take a nonrotating box with mass $m=1\mathrm{kg}$, normal force $N=10\mathrm{N}$, coefficient of static friction ${\mu }_s=0.5$, and coefficient of kinetic friction ${\mu }_k=0.3$. These are assumed model parameters, rather than measured properties of any particular pair of materials; the prescribed normal force is consistent with horizontal support under $g=10m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and no other vertical forces. On stationary ground, a box already sliding right has $f_k=-3\mathrm{N}$. With an applied horizontal force $F=6\mathrm{N}$ to the right, Newton's second law gives $a=(F+f_k)/m=3m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, for as long as rightward contact slip persists.

Direction is clearer by comparing two instantaneous states of this same model. If the box has $v=1m/s$ on stationary ground, $U=0$ and $w=+1m/s$, so kinetic friction acts left with magnitude $3\mathrm{N}$. If the box still has $v=1m/s$ but a belt beneath it has $U=2m/s$, then $w=-1m/s$: kinetic friction acts right with magnitude $3\mathrm{N}$, even while the box moves right.

In the belt case, the power delivered to the box is $P_{\mathrm{box}}=f_{k}v=+3\mathrm{W}$. With no other horizontal force, its kinetic energy therefore increases by the work-energy theorem. By Newton's third law, the box exerts $-f_k$ on the belt, so the contact power delivered to the belt is $P_{\mathrm{belt}}=-f_{k}U=-6\mathrm{W}$. Their sum is $-3\mathrm{W}$: frictional heating produces thermal internal energy at $3\mathrm{W}$. An ideal motor maintaining the prescribed belt velocity supplies $+6\mathrm{W}$ against this contact load, neglecting other losses, so its input divides into $3\mathrm{W}$ of box kinetic energy and $3\mathrm{W}$ of frictional heating. These are instantaneous rates, since the box's velocity subsequently changes. This balance follows directly from power as force times velocity and conservation of energy; the power law is given in Ling, Sanny and Moebs, OpenStax University Physics 1, §7.4: power.

When contact slip vanishes, including a transition to rolling without slipping, the nonzero-slip law no longer applies. Determine the required static friction from the no-slip condition and the equations of motion, then test its bound. Substituting $\mathrm{sgn}(0)=0$ into the sliding law would incorrectly exclude a nonzero static friction.

Changing the added mass while retaining the same contact pair and sliding speed tests whether a constant coefficient of kinetic friction is a useful model. Compute $N=(m_{\mathrm{block}}+m_{\mathrm{added}})g$ for each level horizontal run, and plot the mean sliding force vertically against normal force horizontally. The constant-coefficient prediction is a straight line through the origin; its slope is ${\mu }_k$. This extracts a ratio from several loads rather than relying on one reading.

The apparatus sketch identifies the contact pair and horizontal pull used by the cited laboratory procedure. The plotted line and points are the original stipulated ${\mu }_k=0.30$ model from coefficient of kinetic friction, not laboratory data. The two model points giveIn actual measurements, a linear regression $\overline{F}=b+{\mu }_{k}N$ can expose an unexplained intercept $b$. A nonzero intercept calls for checking the gauge zero, other resisting forces and the contact model; forcing the line through zero can hide those problems. Conversely, constant ratios within measurement error support the approximation only over the loads, speeds and surface conditions tested. A load sweep alone cannot establish independence from contact area or sliding speed; those require separate controlled variations.

A constraint that depends explicitly on time can exert a normal force that does actual work, even when its force does no work on an allowed instantaneous virtual displacement. The surface motion gives the constrained particle a normal component of actual velocity.

For dry friction, the tangential contact force opposes sliding and has limiting magnitude ${\mu }_f{N}_c$, where $N_c\ge 0$ is the compressive normal force and ${\mu }_f=\tan \varphi$. Sticking requires $|F|\le {\mu }_f{N}_c$; impending sliding reaches equality.

The cohesionless Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion applies the same local condition on internal planes: yield begins when some plane has $|{\tau }_{\mathrm{shear}}|=N_c\tan \varphi$. In the tension-positive Cauchy convention used here, $N_c=-N$ for a compressive plane, soA cohesive material would add a positive intercept, but the later formulas in this paper are explicitly the zero-cohesion case. The model does not supply a tensile strength law.

Use a translating accelerated reference frame; its axes do not rotate. If $\mathbf{R}=(\xi ,\eta ,\zeta )$ is the block's position relative to the table, then its inertial position is $\mathbf{r}=\mathbf{R}+\mathbf{A}\sin \omega t$. Its relative velocity is $\dot{\mathbf{R}}$ and its inertial acceleration is $\ddot{\mathbf{R}}-{\omega }^2\mathbf{A}\sin \omega t$. Let $N$ be the upward normal force. During contact $\zeta =\dot{\zeta }=\ddot{\zeta }=0$, and the linear tangential resistance givesThese are Newton's second law transformed to the table's reference frame; the extra terms arise from the table's acceleration. The last equation gives $N=m(g-A_z{\omega }^2\sin \omega t)$ while contact persists. If contact is lost, both the contact resistance and $N$ vanish, and free flight must be described by the corresponding gravity-only equations.

For $A_z=0$, assume $\lambda >0$ and put $\gamma =\lambda /m$. Seek a periodic particular solution ${\xi }_p=b\sin \omega t+c\cos \omega t$. Substitution into the first differential equation givesSolving yieldsThe homogeneous solutions are a constant and a multiple of $e^{-\gamma t}$. Choose the phase $0<\theta <\pi /2$ with $\tan \theta =\omega /\gamma =m\omega /\lambda$. Then $b=-A_x{\sin }^2\theta$ and $c=-A_x\sin \theta \cos \theta$, soAlso $\eta (t)={\eta }_{\infty }+C_{\eta }{e}^{-\lambda t/m}$. The decaying transients leave the stated steady orbit. Positive damping is essential to this late-time assertion; for $\lambda =0$ an additional constant drift may persist.

No attractive contact force is available, so $N$ cannot be negative. Over a whole oscillation its minimum is $m(g-{\omega }^2|A_z|)$. Thus strictly positive contact loading throughout requires $\boxed{{\omega }^2|A_z|<g}$, or the printed form with $A_z$ taken as a nonnegative vertical amplitude. If ${\omega }^2|A_z|>g$, contact cannot persist: it would require $N<0$ during part of the cycle. At equality, $N$ vanishes only at isolated instants and the ideal constrained motion can still remain in contact. Hence the strict inequality characterizes positive loading; mere nonnegative contact permits the marginal equality case.

Let $m$ be the car's mass and let $v(t)$ be its forward speed. Initially the driven contact surfaces slip backward relative to the ground because $v<r\Omega$. Thus kinetic friction on the car acts forward. On the horizontal surface the total normal force is $mg$, so Newton's second law gives $m\dot{v}=\mu mg$. While slipping persists,The contact slip speed is $r\Omega -v(t)$. Its first zero is the onset of rolling without slipping, henceThe engine maintains the prescribed wheel speed, so wheel spin-down is not part of this calculation.

On a slope of angle $\alpha >0$, directed uphill, the normal force is $mg\cos \alpha$ and gravity contributes $-mg\sin \alpha$ along the slope. Therefore the uphill acceleration while slipping is $g(\mu \cos \alpha -\sin \alpha )$. If it is positive, the onset of rolling without slipping occurs atThe inequality follows because $\mu \cos \alpha -\sin \alpha <\mu$. If $\mu \cos \alpha \le \sin \alpha$, the car does not accelerate uphill to $r\Omega$, so there is no finite catch-up time in this sliding-friction model. The finite-time conclusion presumes positive traction sufficient to climb the slope.

Let ${\mathbf{e}}_r,{\mathbf{e}}_{\varphi },{\mathbf{e}}_z$ be the cylindrical unit vectors. The surface has an upward normal vector proportional to ${\mathbf{e}}_z-h^{\prime }(r){\mathbf{e}}_r$. If $N_z$ is the vertical component of the normal force, its radial component is $-h^{\prime }(r)N_z$. In the stated approximation, vertical acceleration and the vertical driving-force component are neglected, so vertical balance gives $N_z\simeq Mg$. The horizontal contact force is consequently $-Mg{h}^{\prime }(r){\mathbf{e}}_r$. The projected velocity and its speed areThe driving force is parallel to this velocity, with components $F\dot{r}/u$ and $Fr\dot{\varphi }/u$. Use the acceleration in polar coordinates and Newton's second law to obtainThese equations apply where $u\ne 0$; at rest the direction of an exactly velocity-aligned drive is not determined.

For a prescribed path, write $r^{\prime }=dr/d\varphi$, $r^{\prime \prime }=d^{2}r/d{\varphi }^2$. The chain rule gives $\dot{r}=r^{\prime }\dot{\varphi }$ and $\ddot{r}=r^{\prime \prime }{\dot{\varphi }}^2+r^{\prime }\ddot{\varphi }$. Subtract $r^{\prime }/r$ times the azimuthal equation from the radial equation. The driving force and $\ddot{\varphi }$ both cancel:Thus the constraint for tangentially driven motion on an axisymmetric surface isThe denominator must give a nonnegative squared speed, and the calculation uses $r>0$. At the polar origin a limiting Cartesian description is appropriate.

For the paraboloid and Archimedean spiral, putThen, for $\varphi >0$,The branch tending to $\varphi =\infty$ has positive angular velocity, henceSince $u=ϵ\dot{\varphi }\sqrt{1+{\varphi }^2}$, solve the azimuthal equation for the required force:This is positive for $\varphi >0$, consistent with a forward drive. Taking the limit gives

These are the large-time limits of the printed projected equations. Their mechanical approximation has a precise range limitation: on the exact surface, $z=h(r)$ gives $\dot{z}=(2r/\ell )\dot{r}$, which along this solution grows like $2{ϵ}^2\alpha \varphi /\ell$. At fixed positive $ϵ$, it is not small as $\varphi \to \infty$. Thus the requested limits are formal limits of that reduced model; neglect of vertical motion is not a uniform approximation to the full three-dimensional motion all the way to infinity.