Homework question about an engine pulling a train The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Mechanics Question: Work and PowerMechanics Question: Energy, Work and PowerCan we define tension in a string as the reactive force produced in a string being pulled at both ends?What objects' masses do we need to take into account when calculating force?Does the frame of reference change the behavior of a particleA train is moving up an incline of inclination $pi/6$ with constant velocity. A bob is hung on the ceiling. The angle made by the bob with normal?Homework - Calculating normal force with additional accelerations (besides gravity)What does the Force in the equation P=FV represent?Infinite loop of forces?Mechanics Question - Thrust in a Rod between train and carriage
What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?
How to remove this toilet supply line that seems to have no nut?
How to test the equality of two Pearson correlation coefficients computed from the same sample?
How to copy the contents of all files with a certain name into a new file?
Create an outline of font
Match Roman Numerals
"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?
How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?
Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?
ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost?
Wall plug outlet change
Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?
How does ice melt when immersed in water?
When did F become S in typeography, and why?
How do I add random spotting to the same face in cycles?
Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?
Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments
Finding the path in a graph from A to B then back to A with a minimum of shared edges
Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?
The variadic template constructor of my class cannot modify my class members, why is that so?
Take groceries in checked luggage
Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?
Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?
What is special about square numbers here?
Homework question about an engine pulling a train
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Mechanics Question: Work and PowerMechanics Question: Energy, Work and PowerCan we define tension in a string as the reactive force produced in a string being pulled at both ends?What objects' masses do we need to take into account when calculating force?Does the frame of reference change the behavior of a particleA train is moving up an incline of inclination $pi/6$ with constant velocity. A bob is hung on the ceiling. The angle made by the bob with normal?Homework - Calculating normal force with additional accelerations (besides gravity)What does the Force in the equation P=FV represent?Infinite loop of forces?Mechanics Question - Thrust in a Rod between train and carriage
$begingroup$
An 8000 kg engine pulls a train of 5 wagons, each of 2000 kg, along a
horizontal track. If the engine exerts a force of 40000N , calculate the acceleration of the train.
To find the acceleration of the train , I divided 40000N by mass of 5 wagons.
But in the book the mass of the engine was also included for finding the acceleration.
I cannot understand how is the force of 40000 N acting on (engine + wagons). According to me this should only act on the wagons as the engine is applying this force.
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics forces
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
$endgroup$
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
An 8000 kg engine pulls a train of 5 wagons, each of 2000 kg, along a
horizontal track. If the engine exerts a force of 40000N , calculate the acceleration of the train.
To find the acceleration of the train , I divided 40000N by mass of 5 wagons.
But in the book the mass of the engine was also included for finding the acceleration.
I cannot understand how is the force of 40000 N acting on (engine + wagons). According to me this should only act on the wagons as the engine is applying this force.
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics forces
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
This is a poorly worded question. I read (like you) that the engine exerts 40000 N on the train of wagons. What they should have said is that the net force on the engine and train is 40000 N, if the mass of the engine was involved. The only correct answer is to give both situations. The book is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine!
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
The problem is ambiguously worded, but I'm shocked that you have all forgotten to include the vertical force exerted by the weight of the engine on the ground! Surely, we're meant to subtract that out from the 40kN total force. Since the question does not specify what the local gravity is on the train's planet, we clearly cannot solve it.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Xerxes This is completely wrong. The vertical forces cancel each other and have nothing to do with the horizontal force pulling the train. You forget the normal force exerted by the ground on the train.
$endgroup$
– nasu
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@nasu The cancelling normal force is exerted on, not by, the engine.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
An 8000 kg engine pulls a train of 5 wagons, each of 2000 kg, along a
horizontal track. If the engine exerts a force of 40000N , calculate the acceleration of the train.
To find the acceleration of the train , I divided 40000N by mass of 5 wagons.
But in the book the mass of the engine was also included for finding the acceleration.
I cannot understand how is the force of 40000 N acting on (engine + wagons). According to me this should only act on the wagons as the engine is applying this force.
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics forces
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
$endgroup$
An 8000 kg engine pulls a train of 5 wagons, each of 2000 kg, along a
horizontal track. If the engine exerts a force of 40000N , calculate the acceleration of the train.
To find the acceleration of the train , I divided 40000N by mass of 5 wagons.
But in the book the mass of the engine was also included for finding the acceleration.
I cannot understand how is the force of 40000 N acting on (engine + wagons). According to me this should only act on the wagons as the engine is applying this force.
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics forces
homework-and-exercises newtonian-mechanics forces
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
edited yesterday
knzhou
47k11127226
47k11127226
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
asked yesterday
Ashok SharmaAshok Sharma
788
788
7
$begingroup$
This is a poorly worded question. I read (like you) that the engine exerts 40000 N on the train of wagons. What they should have said is that the net force on the engine and train is 40000 N, if the mass of the engine was involved. The only correct answer is to give both situations. The book is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine!
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
The problem is ambiguously worded, but I'm shocked that you have all forgotten to include the vertical force exerted by the weight of the engine on the ground! Surely, we're meant to subtract that out from the 40kN total force. Since the question does not specify what the local gravity is on the train's planet, we clearly cannot solve it.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Xerxes This is completely wrong. The vertical forces cancel each other and have nothing to do with the horizontal force pulling the train. You forget the normal force exerted by the ground on the train.
$endgroup$
– nasu
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@nasu The cancelling normal force is exerted on, not by, the engine.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
|
show 10 more comments
7
$begingroup$
This is a poorly worded question. I read (like you) that the engine exerts 40000 N on the train of wagons. What they should have said is that the net force on the engine and train is 40000 N, if the mass of the engine was involved. The only correct answer is to give both situations. The book is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine!
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
The problem is ambiguously worded, but I'm shocked that you have all forgotten to include the vertical force exerted by the weight of the engine on the ground! Surely, we're meant to subtract that out from the 40kN total force. Since the question does not specify what the local gravity is on the train's planet, we clearly cannot solve it.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Xerxes This is completely wrong. The vertical forces cancel each other and have nothing to do with the horizontal force pulling the train. You forget the normal force exerted by the ground on the train.
$endgroup$
– nasu
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@nasu The cancelling normal force is exerted on, not by, the engine.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
7
7
$begingroup$
This is a poorly worded question. I read (like you) that the engine exerts 40000 N on the train of wagons. What they should have said is that the net force on the engine and train is 40000 N, if the mass of the engine was involved. The only correct answer is to give both situations. The book is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
This is a poorly worded question. I read (like you) that the engine exerts 40000 N on the train of wagons. What they should have said is that the net force on the engine and train is 40000 N, if the mass of the engine was involved. The only correct answer is to give both situations. The book is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
6
6
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine!
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine!
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
The problem is ambiguously worded, but I'm shocked that you have all forgotten to include the vertical force exerted by the weight of the engine on the ground! Surely, we're meant to subtract that out from the 40kN total force. Since the question does not specify what the local gravity is on the train's planet, we clearly cannot solve it.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
$begingroup$
The problem is ambiguously worded, but I'm shocked that you have all forgotten to include the vertical force exerted by the weight of the engine on the ground! Surely, we're meant to subtract that out from the 40kN total force. Since the question does not specify what the local gravity is on the train's planet, we clearly cannot solve it.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
5
5
$begingroup$
@Xerxes This is completely wrong. The vertical forces cancel each other and have nothing to do with the horizontal force pulling the train. You forget the normal force exerted by the ground on the train.
$endgroup$
– nasu
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Xerxes This is completely wrong. The vertical forces cancel each other and have nothing to do with the horizontal force pulling the train. You forget the normal force exerted by the ground on the train.
$endgroup$
– nasu
yesterday
3
3
$begingroup$
@nasu The cancelling normal force is exerted on, not by, the engine.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
$begingroup$
@nasu The cancelling normal force is exerted on, not by, the engine.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
|
show 10 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The question is ambiguous, but I think we are meant to assume that the engine exerts a force of $40000$ N on the track. From the reaction force of $40000$ N on the engine some part, say $F_1$, is acting to accelerate the engine itself and some other part, say $F_2$, is exerted on the wagons. The acceleration of the engine and of the wagons is the same, so if this acceleration is $a$ then
$F_1 = 8000a \ F_2 = 10000a \ 40000 = F_1 + F_2 = 18000a \ Rightarrow a = frac4000018000$
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
IMO you're right: the problem's wording is bad. It's meaningless to say "the engine exerts a force of 40000 N". The engine interacts both with the first wagon and with the rail, exerting forces on both and these forces are different. How can we know what the book's author had in mind? If the former, your answer is right, if the latter, the book's one is right. Of course in the latter case (force exerted on rail) it's not that force which accelerates the train, but the rail's reaction.
As a general rule we shouldn't say "A exerts a force" - much better "A exerts a force on B". Better yet "A exerts a force on point P of B". The point where a force acts can make a great difference.
Edit
Many things have been said but IMO it's useful to be still clearer. After further reflections I think it's not wording that's bad, but the thinking behind.
As already stated e.g. by @Farcher in mechanics problems the first thing to be done is to make clear which the (mechanical) system is. In our case, it's wagons or wagons + engine? Note that it wouldn't make
difference as to acceleration, which is the same for all parts of the train, but isn't by no means the same if forces are concerned. Consider the two choices:
a) The system consists of wagons alone. Then it makes sense to say that engine (which doesn't belong to the system) applies a given force $F$ to the system and compute acceleration as $a=F/m$, where
$m=10000,rm kg$. Given the book's answer, this isn't the author's choice.
b) The system consists of the whole train, engine included. Then there are two alternatives as to the given force $F$ (here I'm reiterating)
b1) $F$ is a force engine applies to wagons. Then it's an internal force and as such it cannot accelerate the system. Its acceleration is only due to the net external force (in computing the resultant internal forces cancel thanks to third Newton's law). Then the
solution is nonsense.
b2) $F$ is a force engine applies to external world. In that case it will never accelerate the system or a part of it. It could accelerate the rail, were it not firmly fixed to ground. Not to mention that a force engine applies to rail exists, but is in the wrong direction.
So not even choice b) is acceptable. Neither as it's used in gandalf61's answer.
I'd like to add another comment. Unfortunately "engine" in English may mean two different things: either the motor proper (electric, diesel,
or else) which ultimately is the cause of motion - or the car carrying it. Of course the datum of mass suggests the latter interpretation. But my suspicion is that the author - maybe without realizing - thought
of the former.
I'm led to say so because it's a very common way of thinking about cars and other motorized vehicles. If you ask someone "which force causes a car move?" I bet you'll get as an answer "the motor's force". Nobody thinks that in strict mechanical meaning the motor can only produce internal forces and as such will never move a car by a cm. That the only external force which can put a car in motion is the road's friction on the wheels.
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have to add mass of engine also.The force is applied on whole system.What will be the acceleration of only engine if you remove wagons?You will consider it's mass also.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Imagine if you only had the engine by itself exerting the same 40,000N of thrust, to find the acceleration of the engine you would not do 40000/0kg would you? The 40,000N the engine exert is also used to thrust itself forward.
But let’s say it didn’t, and that only the wagons were pulled. Well now you have a stationary engine, pulling 5 wagons, each with an acceleration of 4m/s^2. These wagons will catch up to the engine in no time and obliterate the engine from behind. we can at least agree this is not how train works
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question is flawed in that can be deemed to be ambiguous and therefore requires interpretation.
Using Newton’s second law requires the system under consideration to be defined and that has not been done in this question.
Without the system being defined the statement
the engine exerts a force of 40000N
is the cause of the ambiguity.
So which is it?
1 The engine is exerting an external force of 40000N on the system of five wagons.
2 The engine exerts an internal force of 40000N on the system of five wagons and the engine.
3 There is an external force of 40000N on the engine and five wagons.
The author of the book really meant option 3 but given the way the question was written I have to agree with the OP that an external force of 40000N is acting on the five wagons whcich is option 1.
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The force of 40 kN is exerted on the rails, not the wagons
We have to assume that the engine and wagons are all coupled together, and therefore that they move together. If the engine exerted a force on the wagons but did not move with them, the wagons would provide a different force in reaction. If the train was off the track, it would not be exerting that force on the wagons.
The engine turns the wheels which exert a force backwards on the rails, which also imparts the reaction forwards on the train.
That force is transmitted from the rails through the engine and the coupling to the wagons.
To take a different circumstance, suppose the train was going uphill? The engine will still exert a force of the same magnitude, but this time the balance of forces and angles are different, so the acceleration is different too.
Thus that force must accelerate the total mass of the engine and the wagons together.
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472237%2fhomework-question-about-an-engine-pulling-a-train%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The question is ambiguous, but I think we are meant to assume that the engine exerts a force of $40000$ N on the track. From the reaction force of $40000$ N on the engine some part, say $F_1$, is acting to accelerate the engine itself and some other part, say $F_2$, is exerted on the wagons. The acceleration of the engine and of the wagons is the same, so if this acceleration is $a$ then
$F_1 = 8000a \ F_2 = 10000a \ 40000 = F_1 + F_2 = 18000a \ Rightarrow a = frac4000018000$
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The question is ambiguous, but I think we are meant to assume that the engine exerts a force of $40000$ N on the track. From the reaction force of $40000$ N on the engine some part, say $F_1$, is acting to accelerate the engine itself and some other part, say $F_2$, is exerted on the wagons. The acceleration of the engine and of the wagons is the same, so if this acceleration is $a$ then
$F_1 = 8000a \ F_2 = 10000a \ 40000 = F_1 + F_2 = 18000a \ Rightarrow a = frac4000018000$
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The question is ambiguous, but I think we are meant to assume that the engine exerts a force of $40000$ N on the track. From the reaction force of $40000$ N on the engine some part, say $F_1$, is acting to accelerate the engine itself and some other part, say $F_2$, is exerted on the wagons. The acceleration of the engine and of the wagons is the same, so if this acceleration is $a$ then
$F_1 = 8000a \ F_2 = 10000a \ 40000 = F_1 + F_2 = 18000a \ Rightarrow a = frac4000018000$
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
$endgroup$
The question is ambiguous, but I think we are meant to assume that the engine exerts a force of $40000$ N on the track. From the reaction force of $40000$ N on the engine some part, say $F_1$, is acting to accelerate the engine itself and some other part, say $F_2$, is exerted on the wagons. The acceleration of the engine and of the wagons is the same, so if this acceleration is $a$ then
$F_1 = 8000a \ F_2 = 10000a \ 40000 = F_1 + F_2 = 18000a \ Rightarrow a = frac4000018000$
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
answered yesterday
gandalf61gandalf61
652210
652210
2
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
2
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I agree, the wording includes the engine.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
I would argue that the engine exerts the force on the track, and the reaction force is what accelerates the (whole) train (engine+wagons). Otherwise the problem would have specified the force acting at the first coupling, or used some indication like "net".
$endgroup$
– CCTO
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
@CCTO Agreed - I will add this to my answer.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
$begingroup$
The OP's question is a good one, but I don't think that the test question is ambiguous in the slightest. It seems to me that the OP's misunderstanding of it is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that this question is designed to test.
$endgroup$
– bornfromanegg
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
$begingroup$
@bornfromanegg I think the ambiguity comes from the word "engine". if we assume that the engine is a moving engine i.e. a locomotive then the $40000$ N is accelerating both the engine and the wagons. But "engine" could possibly mean stationary engine, in which case the $40000$ N is accelerating only the wagons and the mass of the engine is irrelevant.
$endgroup$
– gandalf61
yesterday
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
IMO you're right: the problem's wording is bad. It's meaningless to say "the engine exerts a force of 40000 N". The engine interacts both with the first wagon and with the rail, exerting forces on both and these forces are different. How can we know what the book's author had in mind? If the former, your answer is right, if the latter, the book's one is right. Of course in the latter case (force exerted on rail) it's not that force which accelerates the train, but the rail's reaction.
As a general rule we shouldn't say "A exerts a force" - much better "A exerts a force on B". Better yet "A exerts a force on point P of B". The point where a force acts can make a great difference.
Edit
Many things have been said but IMO it's useful to be still clearer. After further reflections I think it's not wording that's bad, but the thinking behind.
As already stated e.g. by @Farcher in mechanics problems the first thing to be done is to make clear which the (mechanical) system is. In our case, it's wagons or wagons + engine? Note that it wouldn't make
difference as to acceleration, which is the same for all parts of the train, but isn't by no means the same if forces are concerned. Consider the two choices:
a) The system consists of wagons alone. Then it makes sense to say that engine (which doesn't belong to the system) applies a given force $F$ to the system and compute acceleration as $a=F/m$, where
$m=10000,rm kg$. Given the book's answer, this isn't the author's choice.
b) The system consists of the whole train, engine included. Then there are two alternatives as to the given force $F$ (here I'm reiterating)
b1) $F$ is a force engine applies to wagons. Then it's an internal force and as such it cannot accelerate the system. Its acceleration is only due to the net external force (in computing the resultant internal forces cancel thanks to third Newton's law). Then the
solution is nonsense.
b2) $F$ is a force engine applies to external world. In that case it will never accelerate the system or a part of it. It could accelerate the rail, were it not firmly fixed to ground. Not to mention that a force engine applies to rail exists, but is in the wrong direction.
So not even choice b) is acceptable. Neither as it's used in gandalf61's answer.
I'd like to add another comment. Unfortunately "engine" in English may mean two different things: either the motor proper (electric, diesel,
or else) which ultimately is the cause of motion - or the car carrying it. Of course the datum of mass suggests the latter interpretation. But my suspicion is that the author - maybe without realizing - thought
of the former.
I'm led to say so because it's a very common way of thinking about cars and other motorized vehicles. If you ask someone "which force causes a car move?" I bet you'll get as an answer "the motor's force". Nobody thinks that in strict mechanical meaning the motor can only produce internal forces and as such will never move a car by a cm. That the only external force which can put a car in motion is the road's friction on the wheels.
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
IMO you're right: the problem's wording is bad. It's meaningless to say "the engine exerts a force of 40000 N". The engine interacts both with the first wagon and with the rail, exerting forces on both and these forces are different. How can we know what the book's author had in mind? If the former, your answer is right, if the latter, the book's one is right. Of course in the latter case (force exerted on rail) it's not that force which accelerates the train, but the rail's reaction.
As a general rule we shouldn't say "A exerts a force" - much better "A exerts a force on B". Better yet "A exerts a force on point P of B". The point where a force acts can make a great difference.
Edit
Many things have been said but IMO it's useful to be still clearer. After further reflections I think it's not wording that's bad, but the thinking behind.
As already stated e.g. by @Farcher in mechanics problems the first thing to be done is to make clear which the (mechanical) system is. In our case, it's wagons or wagons + engine? Note that it wouldn't make
difference as to acceleration, which is the same for all parts of the train, but isn't by no means the same if forces are concerned. Consider the two choices:
a) The system consists of wagons alone. Then it makes sense to say that engine (which doesn't belong to the system) applies a given force $F$ to the system and compute acceleration as $a=F/m$, where
$m=10000,rm kg$. Given the book's answer, this isn't the author's choice.
b) The system consists of the whole train, engine included. Then there are two alternatives as to the given force $F$ (here I'm reiterating)
b1) $F$ is a force engine applies to wagons. Then it's an internal force and as such it cannot accelerate the system. Its acceleration is only due to the net external force (in computing the resultant internal forces cancel thanks to third Newton's law). Then the
solution is nonsense.
b2) $F$ is a force engine applies to external world. In that case it will never accelerate the system or a part of it. It could accelerate the rail, were it not firmly fixed to ground. Not to mention that a force engine applies to rail exists, but is in the wrong direction.
So not even choice b) is acceptable. Neither as it's used in gandalf61's answer.
I'd like to add another comment. Unfortunately "engine" in English may mean two different things: either the motor proper (electric, diesel,
or else) which ultimately is the cause of motion - or the car carrying it. Of course the datum of mass suggests the latter interpretation. But my suspicion is that the author - maybe without realizing - thought
of the former.
I'm led to say so because it's a very common way of thinking about cars and other motorized vehicles. If you ask someone "which force causes a car move?" I bet you'll get as an answer "the motor's force". Nobody thinks that in strict mechanical meaning the motor can only produce internal forces and as such will never move a car by a cm. That the only external force which can put a car in motion is the road's friction on the wheels.
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
IMO you're right: the problem's wording is bad. It's meaningless to say "the engine exerts a force of 40000 N". The engine interacts both with the first wagon and with the rail, exerting forces on both and these forces are different. How can we know what the book's author had in mind? If the former, your answer is right, if the latter, the book's one is right. Of course in the latter case (force exerted on rail) it's not that force which accelerates the train, but the rail's reaction.
As a general rule we shouldn't say "A exerts a force" - much better "A exerts a force on B". Better yet "A exerts a force on point P of B". The point where a force acts can make a great difference.
Edit
Many things have been said but IMO it's useful to be still clearer. After further reflections I think it's not wording that's bad, but the thinking behind.
As already stated e.g. by @Farcher in mechanics problems the first thing to be done is to make clear which the (mechanical) system is. In our case, it's wagons or wagons + engine? Note that it wouldn't make
difference as to acceleration, which is the same for all parts of the train, but isn't by no means the same if forces are concerned. Consider the two choices:
a) The system consists of wagons alone. Then it makes sense to say that engine (which doesn't belong to the system) applies a given force $F$ to the system and compute acceleration as $a=F/m$, where
$m=10000,rm kg$. Given the book's answer, this isn't the author's choice.
b) The system consists of the whole train, engine included. Then there are two alternatives as to the given force $F$ (here I'm reiterating)
b1) $F$ is a force engine applies to wagons. Then it's an internal force and as such it cannot accelerate the system. Its acceleration is only due to the net external force (in computing the resultant internal forces cancel thanks to third Newton's law). Then the
solution is nonsense.
b2) $F$ is a force engine applies to external world. In that case it will never accelerate the system or a part of it. It could accelerate the rail, were it not firmly fixed to ground. Not to mention that a force engine applies to rail exists, but is in the wrong direction.
So not even choice b) is acceptable. Neither as it's used in gandalf61's answer.
I'd like to add another comment. Unfortunately "engine" in English may mean two different things: either the motor proper (electric, diesel,
or else) which ultimately is the cause of motion - or the car carrying it. Of course the datum of mass suggests the latter interpretation. But my suspicion is that the author - maybe without realizing - thought
of the former.
I'm led to say so because it's a very common way of thinking about cars and other motorized vehicles. If you ask someone "which force causes a car move?" I bet you'll get as an answer "the motor's force". Nobody thinks that in strict mechanical meaning the motor can only produce internal forces and as such will never move a car by a cm. That the only external force which can put a car in motion is the road's friction on the wheels.
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
$endgroup$
IMO you're right: the problem's wording is bad. It's meaningless to say "the engine exerts a force of 40000 N". The engine interacts both with the first wagon and with the rail, exerting forces on both and these forces are different. How can we know what the book's author had in mind? If the former, your answer is right, if the latter, the book's one is right. Of course in the latter case (force exerted on rail) it's not that force which accelerates the train, but the rail's reaction.
As a general rule we shouldn't say "A exerts a force" - much better "A exerts a force on B". Better yet "A exerts a force on point P of B". The point where a force acts can make a great difference.
Edit
Many things have been said but IMO it's useful to be still clearer. After further reflections I think it's not wording that's bad, but the thinking behind.
As already stated e.g. by @Farcher in mechanics problems the first thing to be done is to make clear which the (mechanical) system is. In our case, it's wagons or wagons + engine? Note that it wouldn't make
difference as to acceleration, which is the same for all parts of the train, but isn't by no means the same if forces are concerned. Consider the two choices:
a) The system consists of wagons alone. Then it makes sense to say that engine (which doesn't belong to the system) applies a given force $F$ to the system and compute acceleration as $a=F/m$, where
$m=10000,rm kg$. Given the book's answer, this isn't the author's choice.
b) The system consists of the whole train, engine included. Then there are two alternatives as to the given force $F$ (here I'm reiterating)
b1) $F$ is a force engine applies to wagons. Then it's an internal force and as such it cannot accelerate the system. Its acceleration is only due to the net external force (in computing the resultant internal forces cancel thanks to third Newton's law). Then the
solution is nonsense.
b2) $F$ is a force engine applies to external world. In that case it will never accelerate the system or a part of it. It could accelerate the rail, were it not firmly fixed to ground. Not to mention that a force engine applies to rail exists, but is in the wrong direction.
So not even choice b) is acceptable. Neither as it's used in gandalf61's answer.
I'd like to add another comment. Unfortunately "engine" in English may mean two different things: either the motor proper (electric, diesel,
or else) which ultimately is the cause of motion - or the car carrying it. Of course the datum of mass suggests the latter interpretation. But my suspicion is that the author - maybe without realizing - thought
of the former.
I'm led to say so because it's a very common way of thinking about cars and other motorized vehicles. If you ask someone "which force causes a car move?" I bet you'll get as an answer "the motor's force". Nobody thinks that in strict mechanical meaning the motor can only produce internal forces and as such will never move a car by a cm. That the only external force which can put a car in motion is the road's friction on the wheels.
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
answered yesterday
Elio FabriElio Fabri
3,6781214
3,6781214
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
$begingroup$
Choice b is, acceptable. You just have to go one more step and apply the law of action and reaction. The force exerted on the rails accelerates the Earth, but the reaction accelerates the train.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
13 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have to add mass of engine also.The force is applied on whole system.What will be the acceleration of only engine if you remove wagons?You will consider it's mass also.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have to add mass of engine also.The force is applied on whole system.What will be the acceleration of only engine if you remove wagons?You will consider it's mass also.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have to add mass of engine also.The force is applied on whole system.What will be the acceleration of only engine if you remove wagons?You will consider it's mass also.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
You have to add mass of engine also.The force is applied on whole system.What will be the acceleration of only engine if you remove wagons?You will consider it's mass also.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
answered yesterday
BrolyBroly
476214
476214
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Broly is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
7
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
7
7
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
"The force is applied on whole system." That's NOT what the words of the problem say. The engine exerts a force---that must be on something else. In this type of analysis, things don't have self-forces. It's a terrible question.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Bill N: The engine exerts a force on the TRACK, which causes it to accelerate. Since the engine is connected to the cars, it must accelerate them as well, so the mass being accelerated is engine + cars.
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@jamesqf The engine also exerts a force on the tracks due to gravity. Since we were just given total force exerted by the engine on the tracks, don't forget to subtract the gravity portion when calculating the force accelerating the train.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@Matt As long as we're being pedantic, they don't say which planet this train is on, or if it's outer space, so the gravitational force is undefined and the question is unsolvable.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
$begingroup$
@NuclearWang Good point! But I disagree that accounting for gravity is pedantic. (Anyway, assuming earth is a pretty standard assumption for entry level physics) The question doesnt specify what the 40kN is exerted on. It could reasonably be on the first wagon in the line, or it could be the tracks. But in fact neither of these are what the "correct" answer assumes. I dont think its fair to expect arbitrary assumptions while also expecting the OP to ignore a very real, very important, force. Especially since the engine apparently exerts a net 40 kN on presisely zero objects.
$endgroup$
– Matt
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Imagine if you only had the engine by itself exerting the same 40,000N of thrust, to find the acceleration of the engine you would not do 40000/0kg would you? The 40,000N the engine exert is also used to thrust itself forward.
But let’s say it didn’t, and that only the wagons were pulled. Well now you have a stationary engine, pulling 5 wagons, each with an acceleration of 4m/s^2. These wagons will catch up to the engine in no time and obliterate the engine from behind. we can at least agree this is not how train works
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Imagine if you only had the engine by itself exerting the same 40,000N of thrust, to find the acceleration of the engine you would not do 40000/0kg would you? The 40,000N the engine exert is also used to thrust itself forward.
But let’s say it didn’t, and that only the wagons were pulled. Well now you have a stationary engine, pulling 5 wagons, each with an acceleration of 4m/s^2. These wagons will catch up to the engine in no time and obliterate the engine from behind. we can at least agree this is not how train works
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Imagine if you only had the engine by itself exerting the same 40,000N of thrust, to find the acceleration of the engine you would not do 40000/0kg would you? The 40,000N the engine exert is also used to thrust itself forward.
But let’s say it didn’t, and that only the wagons were pulled. Well now you have a stationary engine, pulling 5 wagons, each with an acceleration of 4m/s^2. These wagons will catch up to the engine in no time and obliterate the engine from behind. we can at least agree this is not how train works
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Imagine if you only had the engine by itself exerting the same 40,000N of thrust, to find the acceleration of the engine you would not do 40000/0kg would you? The 40,000N the engine exert is also used to thrust itself forward.
But let’s say it didn’t, and that only the wagons were pulled. Well now you have a stationary engine, pulling 5 wagons, each with an acceleration of 4m/s^2. These wagons will catch up to the engine in no time and obliterate the engine from behind. we can at least agree this is not how train works
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
answered yesterday
Ubaid HassanUbaid Hassan
19311
19311
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ubaid Hassan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
$begingroup$
If the engine is by itself,, what is exerting thrust on? It can't exert thrust on itself. There must be something else exerting thrust on the engine. Regarding your second paragraph, there is obviously some force acting on the engine, but we aren't told what it is. All we know is that the engine exerts a force of 40000 N, presumably on the train of wagons.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine! The problem is solvable for either situation.
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
I do agree with Physics Dave. Though the very existence of this Q and some comments tell that the exercise could have been written more clearly.
$endgroup$
– Alchimista
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
$begingroup$
@BillN on the rails, naturally.
$endgroup$
– hobbs
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question is flawed in that can be deemed to be ambiguous and therefore requires interpretation.
Using Newton’s second law requires the system under consideration to be defined and that has not been done in this question.
Without the system being defined the statement
the engine exerts a force of 40000N
is the cause of the ambiguity.
So which is it?
1 The engine is exerting an external force of 40000N on the system of five wagons.
2 The engine exerts an internal force of 40000N on the system of five wagons and the engine.
3 There is an external force of 40000N on the engine and five wagons.
The author of the book really meant option 3 but given the way the question was written I have to agree with the OP that an external force of 40000N is acting on the five wagons whcich is option 1.
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question is flawed in that can be deemed to be ambiguous and therefore requires interpretation.
Using Newton’s second law requires the system under consideration to be defined and that has not been done in this question.
Without the system being defined the statement
the engine exerts a force of 40000N
is the cause of the ambiguity.
So which is it?
1 The engine is exerting an external force of 40000N on the system of five wagons.
2 The engine exerts an internal force of 40000N on the system of five wagons and the engine.
3 There is an external force of 40000N on the engine and five wagons.
The author of the book really meant option 3 but given the way the question was written I have to agree with the OP that an external force of 40000N is acting on the five wagons whcich is option 1.
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question is flawed in that can be deemed to be ambiguous and therefore requires interpretation.
Using Newton’s second law requires the system under consideration to be defined and that has not been done in this question.
Without the system being defined the statement
the engine exerts a force of 40000N
is the cause of the ambiguity.
So which is it?
1 The engine is exerting an external force of 40000N on the system of five wagons.
2 The engine exerts an internal force of 40000N on the system of five wagons and the engine.
3 There is an external force of 40000N on the engine and five wagons.
The author of the book really meant option 3 but given the way the question was written I have to agree with the OP that an external force of 40000N is acting on the five wagons whcich is option 1.
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
$endgroup$
The question is flawed in that can be deemed to be ambiguous and therefore requires interpretation.
Using Newton’s second law requires the system under consideration to be defined and that has not been done in this question.
Without the system being defined the statement
the engine exerts a force of 40000N
is the cause of the ambiguity.
So which is it?
1 The engine is exerting an external force of 40000N on the system of five wagons.
2 The engine exerts an internal force of 40000N on the system of five wagons and the engine.
3 There is an external force of 40000N on the engine and five wagons.
The author of the book really meant option 3 but given the way the question was written I have to agree with the OP that an external force of 40000N is acting on the five wagons whcich is option 1.
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
answered yesterday
FarcherFarcher
52.1k340110
52.1k340110
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The force of 40 kN is exerted on the rails, not the wagons
We have to assume that the engine and wagons are all coupled together, and therefore that they move together. If the engine exerted a force on the wagons but did not move with them, the wagons would provide a different force in reaction. If the train was off the track, it would not be exerting that force on the wagons.
The engine turns the wheels which exert a force backwards on the rails, which also imparts the reaction forwards on the train.
That force is transmitted from the rails through the engine and the coupling to the wagons.
To take a different circumstance, suppose the train was going uphill? The engine will still exert a force of the same magnitude, but this time the balance of forces and angles are different, so the acceleration is different too.
Thus that force must accelerate the total mass of the engine and the wagons together.
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The force of 40 kN is exerted on the rails, not the wagons
We have to assume that the engine and wagons are all coupled together, and therefore that they move together. If the engine exerted a force on the wagons but did not move with them, the wagons would provide a different force in reaction. If the train was off the track, it would not be exerting that force on the wagons.
The engine turns the wheels which exert a force backwards on the rails, which also imparts the reaction forwards on the train.
That force is transmitted from the rails through the engine and the coupling to the wagons.
To take a different circumstance, suppose the train was going uphill? The engine will still exert a force of the same magnitude, but this time the balance of forces and angles are different, so the acceleration is different too.
Thus that force must accelerate the total mass of the engine and the wagons together.
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The force of 40 kN is exerted on the rails, not the wagons
We have to assume that the engine and wagons are all coupled together, and therefore that they move together. If the engine exerted a force on the wagons but did not move with them, the wagons would provide a different force in reaction. If the train was off the track, it would not be exerting that force on the wagons.
The engine turns the wheels which exert a force backwards on the rails, which also imparts the reaction forwards on the train.
That force is transmitted from the rails through the engine and the coupling to the wagons.
To take a different circumstance, suppose the train was going uphill? The engine will still exert a force of the same magnitude, but this time the balance of forces and angles are different, so the acceleration is different too.
Thus that force must accelerate the total mass of the engine and the wagons together.
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
$endgroup$
The force of 40 kN is exerted on the rails, not the wagons
We have to assume that the engine and wagons are all coupled together, and therefore that they move together. If the engine exerted a force on the wagons but did not move with them, the wagons would provide a different force in reaction. If the train was off the track, it would not be exerting that force on the wagons.
The engine turns the wheels which exert a force backwards on the rails, which also imparts the reaction forwards on the train.
That force is transmitted from the rails through the engine and the coupling to the wagons.
To take a different circumstance, suppose the train was going uphill? The engine will still exert a force of the same magnitude, but this time the balance of forces and angles are different, so the acceleration is different too.
Thus that force must accelerate the total mass of the engine and the wagons together.
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
answered yesterday
Phil HPhil H
900413
900413
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f472237%2fhomework-question-about-an-engine-pulling-a-train%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
-forces, homework-and-exercises, newtonian-mechanics
7
$begingroup$
This is a poorly worded question. I read (like you) that the engine exerts 40000 N on the train of wagons. What they should have said is that the net force on the engine and train is 40000 N, if the mass of the engine was involved. The only correct answer is to give both situations. The book is wrong.
$endgroup$
– Bill N
yesterday
6
$begingroup$
It's tricky but it says "the engine exerts a force" it does not say " the engine exerts a force on the cars". And that's the reason you include the engine!
$endgroup$
– PhysicsDave
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
The problem is ambiguously worded, but I'm shocked that you have all forgotten to include the vertical force exerted by the weight of the engine on the ground! Surely, we're meant to subtract that out from the 40kN total force. Since the question does not specify what the local gravity is on the train's planet, we clearly cannot solve it.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday
5
$begingroup$
@Xerxes This is completely wrong. The vertical forces cancel each other and have nothing to do with the horizontal force pulling the train. You forget the normal force exerted by the ground on the train.
$endgroup$
– nasu
yesterday
3
$begingroup$
@nasu The cancelling normal force is exerted on, not by, the engine.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
yesterday