I think the more general, provable conclusion is that the energy
dissipated cannot quantitatively be accounted for as the line integral of
a CONSTANT, dissipative force.
PS: I think it is worth noting that the frictional force (f=mu*N) which
effects the linear acceleration should not be assumed to be the same as
the frictional force (F=MU*N) which effects dissipation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Edmiston, Mike" <edmiston@BLUFFTON.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: When Physical Intuition Fails
| Here are a few interesting things I learned from this discussion.
| . . .
| (3) Speaking of multiple avenues for energy, I find it interesting that
| thermal energy because of mu*N*delta(x) cannot be the only dissipation
| in this problem. If we assume that slipping dissipation is the only
| avenue of energy loss from the system, we end up with a final velocity
| that is slightly higher than the final velocity calculated by
| conservation of momentum. Thus, this situation not only requires some
| amount of dissipation (as others have nicely pointed out) it requires
| more dissipation than simple slipping.
| . . . I am going a further step and saying that I think we
| also need another avenue of energy dissipation
| even if we do have slipping at the tire/road interface.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.404 / Virus Database: 228 - Release Date: 10/15/2002
This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.