Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

centripetal accel

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.