centripetal accel
|
|
Thread rating:  |
zxcv_890@hotmail.com - 16 Jul 2008 00:24 GMT (1) a_c=v^2/r
but
(2) a_c=4pi^2rf^2
Question: according to eq'n 1), centripetal accel is inversely related to radius. according to eq'n 2), centripetal accel is directly related to radius... what gives?
Uncle Al - 16 Jul 2008 00:42 GMT > (1) a_c=v^2/r > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to radius. according to eq'n 2), centripetal accel is directly > related to radius... what gives? s = vt v = at s = (at^2)/2
 Signature Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Greg Neill - 16 Jul 2008 01:26 GMT >> (1) a_c=v^2/r >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > v = at > s = (at^2)/2 To put a finer point on it, starting with (1) note that the circumference of the circle (for the circular motion) is 2*pi*r. So the period of the motion is 2*pi*r/v, or equivalently, the frequency is
f = v/(2*pi*r)
Solving for v you obtain
v = 2*pi*r*f
Plug this into (1):
a_c = 4*pi^2*r^2*f^2/r
= 4*pi^2*r*f^2
which is (2)
The moral is to beware of what's hidden in the other parameters of the equations. When expressed in terms of frequency there's a "hidden" dependence on radius due to geometry.
hhc314@yahoo.com - 16 Jul 2008 03:20 GMT On Jul 15, 7:24 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> (1) a_c=v^2/r > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to radius. according to eq'n 2), centripetal accel is directly > related to radius... what gives? Before posting here, do you even own a textbooks on introductory physics?
Posting on Usenet is not a subsitute.
Harry C.
zxcv_890@hotmail.com - 16 Jul 2008 15:38 GMT On Jul 15, 10:20 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Before posting here, do you even own a textbooks A textbooks? Apparently you don't own a textbook on introductory grammar.
> on introductory > physics? Sure I do. But I think you overestimate the quality of introductory physics textbooks. They generally don't address subtle points such as the one I asked about. Anyway, thank you Greg Neill for your informative reply.
Sam Wormley - 16 Jul 2008 16:07 GMT > On Jul 15, 10:20 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Before posting here, do you even own a textbooks > > A textbooks? Apparently you don't own a textbook on introductory > grammar. You should train yourself to discern the difference between grammar and typos.
>> on introductory >> physics? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the one I asked about. Anyway, thank you Greg Neill for your > informative reply. If most of the posters understood their introductory physics textbooks. perhaps the river of sh.t wouldn't stink so much.
zxcv_890@hotmail.com - 16 Jul 2008 17:27 GMT > zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 15, 10:20 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You should train yourself to discern the difference between grammar > and typos. OK, let's set aside the so-called "typo" for the time being and focus on the string of words as a whole. Tell me Sam, is
"Before posting here, do you even own a textbook on introductory physics?"
a grammatical sentence?
I rest my case.
>> Sure I do. But I think you overestimate the quality of introductory >> physics textbooks. They generally don't address subtle points such as >> the one I asked about. Anyway, thank you Greg Neill for your >> informative reply.
> If most of the posters understood their introductory physics textbooks. > perhaps the river of sh.t wouldn't stink so much. I'm sorry to have insulted your intelligence with my stupid question. I'm grateful to the patient people out there willing to help.
Sam Wormley - 16 Jul 2008 17:46 GMT > OK, let's set aside the so-called "typo" for the time being and focus > on the string of words as a whole. Tell me Sam, is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I rest my case. Two thoughts wound up in the same "sentence". I do that all the time. In fact, most of my postings would not pass a senior English exam. However, the communication does take place, thanks in part, to the redundancy of the English language.
> I'm sorry to have insulted your intelligence with my stupid question. > I'm grateful to the patient people out there willing to help. You have not insulted me in any way.
As this sci.physics newsgroup has evolved over the decades, it is apparent that many posters do not have the basics of a first year physics course in their backgrounds.
Concerning your original question, see: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CentrifugalForce.html
-Sam
Jim Black - 17 Jul 2008 02:38 GMT > On Jul 15, 10:20 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the one I asked about. Anyway, thank you Greg Neill for your > informative reply. Harry Conover is one of the many cranks that infest this newsgroup. I suggest that you stop using Google Groups to post and read this newsgroup, and set up a real newsreader with a killfile. Then if you don't like his posts, you can filter them out rather than posting weak counterflames.
 Signature Jim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads
hhc314@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 17:09 GMT > > On Jul 15, 10:20 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and set up a real newsreader with a killfile. Then if you don't like his > posts, you can filter them out rather than posting weak counterflames. Jim, if you believe that I am a crank, you're certainly entitles to hold that opinion. Still, since I am an actual physicist that has spent a lifetime in the field, I would really love to hear the basis of your opininion as to why exactly you believe this.
Let me ask you one very simple question. Do you believe that anyone is capable of grasping the concepts of relativity theory or, say, quantum mechanics without first uderstanding the basic Physics 101 and two or three years of following undergraduate physics, upon which the more advanced theory is based upon?
Please do us the honor of explaining why you hold this belief?
So Jim, who is the crank, you or me?
Harry C.
Jim Black - 18 Jul 2008 00:33 GMT > Let me ask you one very simple question. Do you believe that anyone > is capable of grasping the concepts of relativity theory or, say, > quantum mechanics without first uderstanding the basic Physics 101 and > two or three years of following undergraduate physics, upon which the > more advanced theory is based upon? No. But the person you responded to did not ask a question about relativity or quantum mechanics, but rather a question about Physics 101 stuff. It is not appropriate to flame these people.
While you do from time to time expound some crankish beliefs, calling you a crank was an exaggeration. I apologize for that. That is not my concern. What mainly irks me is the tone with which you address people who should be welcomed to this newsgroup.
 Signature Jim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads
hhc314@yahoo.com - 18 Jul 2008 03:18 GMT > > Let me ask you one very simple question. Do you believe that anyone > > is capable of grasping the concepts of relativity theory or, say, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relativity or quantum mechanics, but rather a question about Physics 101 > stuff. It is not appropriate to flame these people. Jim, I never flame anyone. If you believe I do, it is you that is the crank.
True, I often point posters of incorrect data on the newsgroup to Physics 101 texbooks, and even have posted two suggestions on what currently the best two of these books are.
This is how I help the newbies out, except for somtime sending them used copies of quality physics textbooks. This provides them a basis for learning more advanced material in physics.
> While you do from time to time expound some crankish beliefs, calling you a > crank was an exaggeration. I appreciate you saying that, but if you believe that I am a crank for believing readers need to fully grasp physics at the 101 level before that can advance to the 603 level, then you are the crank here.
> I apologize for that. That is not my concern. > What mainly irks me is the tone with which you address people who should be > welcomed to this newsgroup. Sorrry, when I was an undergraduate student, the competion was rather, and on my first day in undergraduate school at Drexel, we were told to look to the left of us, and then to our right. We were assured that if we graduated, these two people would not. That was worse than fact, since out of my feshman class in physics, nearly 40% actually graduated with a BS degree in physics. From my friends at MIT and Cal Tek, I understnand that the percentage is less than 30%. Then too, these are tougher schools than Drexel.
To hone our performance, unless you were a wiz-bang student, you lived to learn with faculty ridicule for every mistakes you make on the assigned problem sets, or on tests. This had two purpose, first to cull the herd. Second, to motivate students to the limits of their abilities. I hated this at the time, particularly since I worked 8 hours after class to pay my tuition, and another 6 on physics problem sets. I lost over 50 lbs while an undergraduate student.
Perhaps this I why I now make the same demand on the physics wannabes as I was exposed to in college. I exposed those that worked for me in industry to precisely that same treatment, no more of no less. Most responded, because they all wanted to be members of the A-Team, where they earned annual pay increases 3X times that of other employees, and nobody ever quit from my team in over 40 years. I can only saythat I must have screened them carfully doing their employment interviews. Obviously the Human Relations department hated me, since I only hired something like 15% of the job candidates that they submitted to me for an interview. And trust me, most of the candidates that I interviewed received higher score from me than from the people that worked for me. That was an education for me, and I learned that women interviewer scoring female applicants were particularly harsh. I never did quite figure that one out.
If the candidate made it to me, I would ask on four questions, and base my hiring decision on their answers to these four questions. Two of these would deal with computer hardware, and the other two with computer software design. My questions were not very difficult, because by the time a candidate reached me, they would have had to go through 4 previous interviewers, each of who had the authority to show the candidate the door, so by the time that they reached me, I knew that they were frazzled. So, my questiions were intentionally rather basic for job candidates who held degrees both in EE and Computer Science. Citing them might help future job applicants. Realize also that the candidates answere is not graded except on his explanation.
1. Explain the process of how addition is performed in a computer. 2. Explain how you would go about diagnosing and correcting a software problem in a computer where the program is contained in ROM. 3. Explain what sort of a circuit you would employ to triple a clock frequency produced by a quartz crystal time base. 4. Explain why a chip embedded cache is preferable to an exernal cache, and why an external caches is sometimes preferred.
Answers:
1. An XOR is first performed, followed by a ripple carry on a bit by bit level. 2. A emulator with diagnostic capabilities is used to store the program in a ROM emulator, which allows breakpoint and state diagnosis. 3. You wold use a single ended, over driven amplifier because it is rich in odd harmonics. A balance push-pull circuit cancels odd harmonics. 4. Interconnects within a chip and much shorter and much faster that connections via a motherboard. The second part of this question is a little sneaky, and focused on it the candidate knows the difference between a primary cache and a secondary cache, and is willing to argue the uses of each.
I hope that this helps someone on their next job interview, and realize that if you make it to the guy that make the final decision, the questions will not be identical, but hopefully this will give you some idea of what that guy will be probing for. Realize that all of the people that you speak to on a job interview are simply screens except for that last inverviewer. It is that kindly old guy or lady that you meet lasr who decides if you will receive a job offer or not.
See Jim, I am not really a mean bastard. While what I just posted has absolutely nothing to do with physics but may be beneficial to some.
Jim, I know that I something come across as being a little harsh on slackers that turn to the newsgroups to solve their homework problems for them, and I often am harsher still with the crackpots that post their silly ramblings on sci.physics.
Harry C.
Jim Black - 18 Jul 2008 04:14 GMT >>> Let me ask you one very simple question. Do you believe that anyone >>> is capable of grasping the concepts of relativity theory or, say, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > used copies of quality physics textbooks. This provides them a basis > for learning more advanced material in physics. You've actually sent people textbooks? That's very helpful of you. I apologize fully for anything I've said. You are certainly not a crank.
>> While you do from time to time expound some crankish beliefs, calling you a >> crank was an exaggeration. > > I appreciate you saying that, but if you believe that I am a crank for > believing readers need to fully grasp physics at the 101 level before > that can advance to the 603 level, then you are the crank here. As I said, I don't disagree with you on that point. By "crankish beliefs," I was referring to some of your remarks about general relativity. But since such things are not anywhere near as important as the basics, this characterization was inappropriate.
> Sorrry, when I was an undergraduate student, the competion was rather, > and on my first day in undergraduate school at Drexel, we were told to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hours after class to pay my tuition, and another 6 on physics problem > sets. I lost over 50 lbs while an undergraduate student. Hmm. This isn't something I see nowadays -- although I imagine it varies from professor to professor and from school to school. But the attitude I've seen is more one of "Let's attract as many students as we can to the department, because so the material is so hard that most of them will switch to something else." But maybe this is a disservice to the students who won't make it.
 Signature Jim E. Black (domain in headers) How to filter out stupid arguments in 40tude Dialog: !markread,ignore From "Name" +"<email address>" [X] Watch/Ignore works on subthreads
PD - 16 Jul 2008 19:27 GMT On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> (1) a_c=v^2/r > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to radius. according to eq'n 2), centripetal accel is directly > related to radius... what gives? For a solid body, v is proportional to r, so even in the top equation, centripetal acceleration is directly proportional to radius.
mL - 17 Jul 2008 10:25 GMT > On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote: >> (1) a_c=v^2/r [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > For a solid body, v is proportional to r, so even in the top equation, > centripetal acceleration is directly proportional to radius. Yes.
BTW ... The definition of centripetal force/acceleration seems to have changed since Newton's time. Have you seen a decent "modern" definition that's applicable for non-circular motion (for example in Kepler motion)?
/mel
hhc314@yahoo.com - 17 Jul 2008 17:59 GMT > > On Jul 15, 6:24 pm, zxcv_...@hotmail.com wrote: > >> (1) a_c=v^2/r [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > /mel You raise an interesting question. So I went out and did a little reserach on that very subject, since my classical and theoretical mechanics courses and textbooks date back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, after having previously been required as a condition of earning my undergraduate degree to translate a chapter in Newton's Principia from Latin into English.
So, I stopped by at my local univsity library here in Boston, and had a look at the classical physics textbook used in their current classes, it was a textook authored by a Prof named Golstein, which is substantially equivalent in content to Becker's "Introduction to Theoretical Mechanics" This it the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Mechanics-3rd-Herbert-Goldstein/dp/0201657023/re f=ed_oe_h
On examing it, nothing has has changed, although it is somewhat watered-down from the treatment in Becker. Some of the mathematics notation has changed slightly over 50 years, but not significantly. In fact, there has been no change in the basic concepts associated with the rotational motion of a rigid object in 3-dimensions in well over 350 years!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica
Now realize that the kooks here never bother to do any research, and like Mr. Black, since they cannot even begin to support their silly, ignorant beliefs, so out of desperation they call the real physicists on sci.physics as the kooks.
For anyone that knows even basic physics, the derivation of Kepler's laws from Newton is a trivial exercise, and the result is trivially obtained by combining fundamental of gravitational attracton (from Newton) with elementary kinematics (conservation of energy and angular momentum).
In simplicity, this tell us that a planet or any object under gravitational force, wil in turn sweep out an equal included area in any spcifiend interval of time, regardless of it orbital eccentricity. Kepler postulated this, but any of today's physics students are fully capable of figuring this out on their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
I suppose that I am a net kook, becuase I learned this as an introduction to physics over 50 years ago, and still remember the basics. That's why in those days each aspiring physics major was required to complete a series pof problem sets that more often than not required 8-or more hours each night. This left no "party time", also no booze or drugs.
Evidentently time have changed. Back in these days I sold cases of fan- fold teletype paper to physics and engineering students, which were draped over their desks and served as the scratch paper that was used in their computations. Belive it or not, the modern equivalent, fan- fold computer paper is still in hot demand by students as colleges like MIT and Cal Tek!
Harry C.
mL - 16 Jul 2008 23:45 GMT > (1) a_c=v^2/r > > but > > (2) a_c=4pi^2rf^2 ... or a_c = rw^2, where w = 2pi*f (w = angular velocity).
> Question: according to eq'n 1), centripetal accel is inversely related > to radius. according to eq'n 2), centripetal accel is directly > related to radius... what gives? Since the two expressions for a_c rest on pure kinematics, you can't tell anything about the r-dependence of a_c from them. To see "what gives", exercise some *dynamics* by applying various (central) forces on a particle moving in a circle.
Be sure to get rid of v/w in your answers.
/mel
|
|
|