I
iTeachChemā€¢3d ago
Opt

NLM doubt - Q74 (red is key answer)

No description
42 Replies
Opt
OptOPā€¢3d ago
,rotate
TeXit
TeXitā€¢3d ago
No description
iTeachChem Helper
iTeachChem Helperā€¢3d ago
@Gyro Gearloose
iTeachChem Helper
iTeachChem Helperā€¢3d ago
Note for OP
+solved @user1 @user2... to close the thread when your doubt is solved. Mention the users who helped you solve the doubt. This will be added to their stats.
Opt
OptOPā€¢3d ago
I applied the condition that velocity along common normal should be the same I got something like 0.5uāˆš34 or something It wasn't a clean answer
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Oh hey I remember this problem...
Opt
OptOPā€¢3d ago
Yeah, but idk what went wrong here
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
I'm very sorry for the handwriting but this was as far as I could figure out.
No description
Opt
OptOPā€¢3d ago
Just a moment, what's v here now?
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Component taken along the incline.
Opt
OptOPā€¢3d ago
Component of resultant?
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Wait a min, I gotta write it out better...
Opt
OptOPā€¢3d ago
Sorry bout that
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
No description
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
@Opt
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
Wait how did we get v
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Since projection of of velocity on given vector must be 2u
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
I'm really sry I didn't understand šŸ’€ The 2 other vel we got since along common normal they have same velocities Didn't understand where the v velocity came
Real potato
Real potatoā€¢3d ago
I remember this problem from cengage
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
I just took some component perpendicular to the u/2 component as v. The main problem in the question was we don't know perpendicular components which would make the problem much easier. Ik, there was some simpler solution to this but I can't remember ;_;
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
Component of what
Real potato
Real potatoā€¢3d ago
It was something related to relative velocity ig
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Velocity.
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
Bro šŸ˜­ How am I tripping Why would there be a velocity perpendicular to u/2 is what I'm asking basically
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Assume for a moment there is no such component. Then the sphere remains sort of "stuck" on the left cylinder.
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
Yeah the net resultant velocity would be in that direction won't it
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Well, assuming doesn't do any harm tho right? šŸ„² 'Cuz even if there is no velocity in that direction, v would come out to be zero for given constraints.
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
Yeah but what I'm saying is If you assume smth that's there in the resultant Wait I think I get you @SirLancelotDuLac i kind of get it now thx
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
I mean, what I said was a bit crass, I apologize. If there is no component of velocity along the incline, meaning the velocity would just be u/2 in the perpendicular direction. Now look at the other wedge and the cylinder. They must always be in contact but our assumption of no perpendicular velocity tells us the block is only moving away from the incline.
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
I understand this method now, but I'm prolly dumb to ask this why can't we just take u/2 components in x and y and get velocity directly??
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
u/2 thing is itself a component and component ke components we can't take.
HydraYT
HydraYTā€¢3d ago
Oh yes nvm I'm dumb af šŸ’€ I knew I was missing something integral Lmao sry thx
Gamertug
Gamertugā€¢3d ago
what? pretty sure we can whats wrong wit that
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Nah man, I was doing the same error for 30 continous minutes šŸ˜­
Sam_2207
Sam_2207ā€¢3d ago
the wedges aren't fixed right? if they're moving in opposite directions then how would the cylinder remain in contact with both of them? this is probably a stupid doubt i'm having, so i'll apologize in advance. edit: understood that they will eventually separate, and it's asking us for the velocity of the cylinder before they do.
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
We can't.
Gamertug
Gamertugā€¢3d ago
i solved a some questions using it and got right answers whats the reason u say we cant when we take a component that in itself is a new vector we can again take its component as we please if that will be of use is another matter
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Here we are missing one of the component of the original vector so taking the new vectors components does not give us the original vector tho.
Gamertug
Gamertugā€¢3d ago
No description
Gamertug
Gamertugā€¢3d ago
i am just saying that we can take component of a component
SirLancelotDuLac
SirLancelotDuLacā€¢3d ago
Ah, what I meant was "incomplete vector", my bad.
Gamertug
Gamertugā€¢3d ago
yes

Did you find this page helpful?