Haii, I don't understand why I need to choose my n-t components in the direction of a circular motion and can't just use them with the n-axis along the rope and the binormal perpendicular to the surface.
sorry didn't see your comment when you posted it. ( I kind of said the same tjhing in the intial part.)oh okay that is interesting. So the problem gave it, but i wanted to see how I could've determined it on my own. But euh- why is that difference by factor of 4?
no but that is what is not the case on this one, because the forces themselves are calculated by the constraint equation F = ##mu * N##.
This means that I can get only two equations that useful from Newton's laws.
And then I can either say that the rope is masseless such that the accelerations...
By the way I did forget the normal force of A on B and of B on A in the analysis of equilibirum but is of no real consequence to the conclusion that 'd be drawn hand, at least I think ofc.
That's why I say Newton's laws for the static situation and see in which dir. it would move when there was no friction and then just oppose that motion. So to say Mass A goes up, thus friction towards the left.
well no, but I determine now what the direction of motion would be such that I can say that the friction opposes the motioin, isn't that a good way to do this.?
Can I now think of this as to have A at rest, the rope needs to exert a 490.5N force, but at that point, mass B will already be moving such that it just goes upwards.
sorry oki,
equilibrium B with friction neglected.
##T_b = m_b*g/2 = 245.3N##
Eq. A with friction neglected:
##T_a = m_a*g/2 = 49.05N##
This is the place where there is actually no friction yet, just to correct miself.
I did the analysis where they are in equilibrium then the tension force in A is way less than B, but how could this conclude that B goes down whilst A goes upP?
I am not very sure how I would be approach this.
Obviously it is stated in which direction it's going where we see that mass A goes to the right, but how do I determine this stuff analytically.