Thank you so much for your videos! They are really helpful! Just so you know, this problem asked for the retarding force so the units should be Newtons, not kilograms.

In this problem, can I use the formula, Ffr = μk*Fn? I calculated μk to be .2. So the answer should be .2*60kg*9.8m/s2 = 117.6N. Is this just another way of solving the problem or did I get it wrong? Thank you!!

Hi theovilous, thanks for the question. While $F_{fr} = \mu_k F_n$ is a correct formula, I'm not sure how you calculated $\mu_k$? It doesn't look possible with the information given, so I think using acceleration is the only method available for solve this one.

Hi theovilous, ah, now I understand your approach. Yes, you can do what you're suggesting. I suspect that if you keep lots of digits in your answer for $\mu_k$ (to avoid intermediate rounding error), that your answer will match the answer here exactly to three significant figures. The approach you're suggesting takes more steps, but it's perfectly valid.

## Comments

Hey Mr. Giancoli,

Thank you so much for your videos! They are really helpful! Just so you know, this problem asked for the retarding force so the units should be Newtons, not kilograms.

Hi sueqrahn, thanks for noticing that typo. You're quite right that it should be written as Newtons and not kilograms.

Keep up the good work,

Mr. Dychko

In this problem, can I use the formula, Ffr = μk*Fn? I calculated μk to be .2. So the answer should be .2*60kg*9.8m/s2 = 117.6N. Is this just another way of solving the problem or did I get it wrong? Thank you!!

Hi theovilous, thanks for the question. While $F_{fr} = \mu_k F_n$ is a correct formula, I'm not sure how you calculated $\mu_k$? It doesn't look possible with the information given, so I think using acceleration is the only method available for solve this one.

All the best,

Mr. Dychko

I considered retarding force as friction. So I set the formula Ffr = ma --> μkmg=ma --> μk = a/g --> μk = 2/9.8 = .2.

So based on the formula, Ffr=μkFn, Ffr=μkmg = .2 * 60kg * 9.8m/s2 = 117.6N.

Does this approach work as well? my result is very close to your answer which is 120N.

Thank you for your quick response! I am learning a lot from you!

Hi theovilous, ah, now I understand your approach. Yes, you can do what you're suggesting. I suspect that if you keep lots of digits in your answer for $\mu_k$ (to avoid intermediate rounding error), that your answer will match the answer here exactly to three significant figures. The approach you're suggesting takes more steps, but it's perfectly valid.

I'm glad you're enjoying the solutions!

All the best,

Mr. Dychko