Talk:Normal force

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something to add 

message: Is there some wikipedia guideline against an example?   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Wizard191 (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I requested clarification of that policy here.   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 

message: 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)
thread_title:  It would be interesting to add some less common examples of a normal force 

message: 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)
thread_title: Lagrangian mechanics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Normal force 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A macro-level explanation of the force. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physical origin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is tau in "Using vectors" section?