Question 9

[michaelgar7090]

I don't understand how m2 or m3 come into play when calculating the mag. of acc. for m1.
The problem states: The surface between masses m1 and m2 is frictionless.
If there's no friction, there's no way to translate forces between the two... When F acts on m1, only m1 will move, and m2 will remain stationary . Is this wrong, and if so why?

I think if there's no friction between m1 and m2 there are problems with the other questions for this scenario...

PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong here. I take the test soon.

[sfarukhi1817]

Posted: 13 Jul 2009 16:46 Post subject: Question 9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand how m2 or m3 come into play when calculating the mag. of acc. for m1.
The problem states: The surface between masses m1 and m2 is frictionless.
If there's no friction, there's no way to translate forces between the two... When F acts on m1, only m1 will move, and m2 will remain stationary . Is this wrong, and if so why?

>> I'm not sure if you've already taken the test- but i think i understand this question. The key thing to pick up from the passage for this question is that m3 doesn't move up or down. This must mean that the m2 is not moving relative to m1. So, the acceleration of m2 is equal to the acceleration of m1.

[hua8986059]

ya there is a bit of intuitive understanding needed for this question. if M2 moved relative to M1 then m3 would move up and down.