If you have static friction with a wheel, or some object, rolling down a plane, why wouldn't the static friction point in the direction of motion? The reason I ask this is because if a wheel is rolling, the contact between the wheel and the surface of the incline would be moving in the counter-clockwise/right direction. So if static friction is opposing that motion, why wouldn't its vector point downhill?
so what ur saying is that the radius would have 0 effect in determining the acceleration on a ramp? How about if the cylinder/sphere was placed on a set of rails? would the acceleration remain constant?
Correct. In an idealized paper problem with no rolling resistance, drag, etc., radius is not a factor. The solution would be the same for any surface with no rolling resistance and no slip.
Seriously thank you. You didn’t have to post these and they are so damn useful pardon my French
Glad you found my work useful. Best of luck with your class.
If you have static friction with a wheel, or some object, rolling down a plane, why wouldn't the static friction point in the direction of motion? The reason I ask this is because if a wheel is rolling, the contact between the wheel and the surface of the incline would be moving in the counter-clockwise/right direction. So if static friction is opposing that motion, why wouldn't its vector point downhill?
Very good explanation
Incredible video!!!! Explained beautifully!
Thank you so much! This video was a great help
Thank you for this video. Great explanation
Nice
so what ur saying is that the radius would have 0 effect in determining the acceleration on a ramp? How about if the cylinder/sphere was placed on a set of rails? would the acceleration remain constant?
Correct. In an idealized paper problem with no rolling resistance, drag, etc., radius is not a factor. The solution would be the same for any surface with no rolling resistance and no slip.