Talk:Normal force

Untitled

The equation for frictonal force is F frict= micro___x normal force. The equation for gravitational force is Fgrav= m x g.

                                              Mass x gravity (10 m/s)

The equation for momentum is p= m x v.

 the "p" is for momentum. it must be lowercase beacause Uppercase is for something else. "m" is for mass. "v" is for velocity.

The equation for kinetic energy is KE= $1/2xmxvsquared$ . KE is for kinetic energy. m is for mass. v squared is for velocity.

The equation for newton's second law of motion is F net= m x a

F net is for net force. M is for mass. A is for acceleration.

question

What would the magnitude of the normal force be on a box, with mass M, on a ramp that is 30 degrees from the ground? Does it matter how long the ramp is? BriEnBest (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a homework question. I'll answer it in the form of a question. What is the total external force on the box? What is the component of that force normal to the ramp? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to add

It would be nice to add the common situation where the normal force acts as the centripetal force since I think that would be instructive. It also might allow for a segue into artificial gravity for example. 82.139.87.238 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Example

Is there some wikipedia guideline against an example? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Wizard191 (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I requested clarification of that policy here. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it simple

There's a strong tendency on Wikipedia to present basic, high-school-level concepts using the most advanced mathematics possible. Wikipedia is not written for graduate students in the field, it is a generalist encyclopedia. We can mention and describe the higher-order concepts, but please, please, present it simply first.

The article on normal force should not be more difficult to read and understand than the one on general relativity. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 213 FCs served} 10:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree.

Not everything can be explained in a simple way and the 'simple' explanation most certainly isn't alwaws the most simple explanation for people who do posess basic math skills.

If, and only if, somthing can be explained in words then 'we' should do so in the introduction of the wiki, after that introduction the more complex formula's and some examples should be given to the reader. Those who don't understand it have the choice to either study some math or skip the rest of the article. Those who do understand it benefit from it, those who don't understand it (yet) are not disadvantaged.

Of course I only write this with regard to scientific subject like math, physics and engineering.

193.190.253.160 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to add some less common examples of a normal force

Right now I have my book of "Engineering mechanics dynamics" (11th edition in SI units from Hibbeler) open and there I see an example of a horizontal normal force of a rod on a collar (page 115). Because of that I took a look at this wiki, unfortunately it didn't make me any wiser. 193.190.253.160 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagrangian mechanics

The section on Lagrangian mechanics makes no sense. It first defines a function f, and proceeds to ignore. Then it gives the equation of motion in Newtonian form. The surface Sigma isn't used, and F and N are undefined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.250.4 (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normal force

This section says that the normal force is equal to mgcos(theta). This is incorrect the normal force is equal to mgsintheta. i will change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.14.250 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A macro-level explanation of the force.

The explanation of electron repulsion as the origin of the normal force is probably correct but fails to acknowledge that all materials deform under pressure and thus for everyday apparently rigid surfaces the bending or squashing is a more straight-forward description, and can be demonstrated to some effect in school science classes. For example a heavy steel-framed laboratory table with a cable connection to a teetering laser pointer at floor level, if the cable connection is, say 1cm from the fulcrum, will tilt the laser pointer enough to move the red dot a measurable amount at the other end of the room, with the weight of one textbook on the table. Two books makes it move further. With such an arrangement suspended from the concrete floor beams of the floor above, I was able to measure that with 20 students moving to stand in that vicinity upstairs, the floor bent down around one micron. So when I explain reaction force to my students I assert that "everything bends". ≈≈≈≈Bumblepom 27 March 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblepom (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physical origin

My professor says that the normal force originates from a net electromagnetic repulsion between the molecule of the objects in contact rather than the Pauli exclusion principle. I have read this also elsewhere on the internet. He says that objects don't usually get close enough for the Pauli exclusion principle to cause any type of behavior, and that the electromagnetic forces act before that. Can somebody give a clarification and in case there was the need, change physical origin section of the article? 131.114.35.40 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins “In mechanics ...” and proceeds with an entirely sound explanation of normal force as a component of a force between two solid objects. It is entirely comprehensible to 13-year olds, as it should be. I regret that the article takes an unnecessary detour into forces between atoms, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Atomic theory and Pauli’s Principle are not part of the subject of mechanics, and are unlikely to be comprehensible to the audience catered for by the remainder of the article. An understanding of atomic theory and Pauli’s Principle are not pre-requisites for understanding the simple concepts of mechanics and a component of a force between two objects. I think the material in the section titled Physical origin would be better located in a different, more appropriate article. Dolphin (t) 04:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is tau in "Using vectors" section?

It is nowhere mentioned on the page. All letters should be defined before they are used, so it is clear what they mean. 188.112.191.236 (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]