Hi there!
To find the appropriate force needed to keep the block moving at a constant speed, we must use the dynamic friction force since the block would be in motion.
Recall:
The normal force of an object on an inclined plane is equivalent to the vertical component of its weight vector. However, the horizontal force applied contains a vertical component that contributes to this normal force.
We can plug in the known values to solve for one part of the normal force:
N = (1)(9.8)(cos30) + F(.5) = 8.49 + .5F
Now, we can plug this into the equation for the dynamic friction force:
Fd= (0.2)(8.49 + .5F) = 1.697 N + .1F
For a block to move with constant speed, the summation of forces must be equivalent to 0 N.
If a HORIZONTAL force is applied to the block, its horizontal component must be EQUIVALENT to the friction force. (∑F = 0 N). Thus:
Fcosθ = 1.697 + .1F
Solve for F:
Fcos(30) - .1F = 1.697
F(cos(30) - .1) = 1.697
F = 2.216 N
Answer:
5
Explanation:
Formula for Mass (for this question)
mass= 1000N/200
=5
(pls do correct me if I have any mistakes it would rlly help others!)
Answer:
A) a scientific theory or principle
Explanation:
A Theory or principle has to explain different observations for a specific phenomenon. Theories are tested in base of new data to see if they can fit with all the new variations. They gain more acceptance in the scientific world if they predict in a correct way the result of many observations.
For example the uncertainty principle which state that the position and the momentum of a particle can not be known at the same time. Many experiments that aim to test the Uncertainty principle demonstrated this property, but tests are currently being done with other variations to see if the principle still fits with them.
1. <span>the low pressure is moving slower than expected.
This make the meteorologist receive premature data which make them fail to interpret the data correctly and make the wronf prediction.
2. Sudden change in wind direction, which transfer the natural occurence into other region than where it initially predicted
3. We still haven't developed the methodology to 100% predict natural occurence</span>
