Physics teacher wanted me to understand how to derive

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the equation for centripetal acceleration, a = v²/r, using various physics equations and principles. Participants explore different methods, including algebraic manipulation and geometric reasoning, while addressing challenges faced during the derivation process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest starting with the equations v = d/t, ω = θ/t, and arc length = rθ to derive a = v²/r.
  • Others mention the importance of reaching the equation v = rω as a stepping stone in the derivation process.
  • A participant notes that they encountered difficulties when trying to manipulate the equations, resulting in confusion with variables like T appearing on both sides.
  • Some propose using calculus and vector analysis to understand the relationship between velocity and acceleration vectors.
  • One participant recalls deriving the formula by creating a proportion between triangles formed by velocity and acceleration vectors and the radii of the circular path.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to consider the change in velocity (Δv) as a vector quantity to fully grasp the derivation.
  • Several participants express frustration over not receiving a straightforward answer, despite previous attempts to explain the derivation process.
  • One participant mentions that while algebraic methods can be applied, they may not yield complete insights without incorporating geometric or calculus-based approaches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single method for deriving the equation. Multiple competing views and approaches are presented, with some participants advocating for algebraic methods and others for geometric or calculus-based reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions highlight the limitations of relying solely on algebraic manipulation, suggesting that a deeper understanding of vector relationships and geometric interpretations may be necessary for a complete derivation.

jimmy p
Gold Member
Messages
419
Reaction score
73
My Physics teacher wanted me to understand how to derive [tex]a=v^2/r[/tex] using the equations [tex]v=d/t[/tex], [tex]\omega=\theta/t[/tex] and [tex]arc length=r\theta[/tex] but when it came down to it, i had brain freeze..and when my teacher looked at it, he had brain freeze. This isn't part of my syllabus but i was wondering how you derive the equation (so it isn't homework!)

oh yeah, i was given the hint to work it first into the equation [tex]v=r\omega[/tex] and then work from there.

Cool, i just used that LaTex stuff! that was quite challenging!

thanx

Jimmy P
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
OK unfortuantely i didnt find that too useful. That is kind of what we tried to do but it failed miserably, because we ended up getting T on both sides of the equation. i could get to [tex]v=r\omega[/tex] (if that is even helpful) and couldn't get any further
 
Can you use calculus?
 
Originally posted by jimmy p
OK unfortuantely i didnt find that too useful. That is kind of what we tried to do but it failed miserably, because we ended up getting T on both sides of the equation. i could get to [tex]v=r\omega[/tex] (if that is even helpful) and couldn't get any further
Well, those two threads show how to derive the formula for centripetal acceleration. I know of no other way.

Using the equations you started with, you can certainly get to [tex]v=r\omega[/tex]. But you won't get any further without using the strategy explained in those threads. The "trick" is to find [tex]\Delta V[/tex]---the difference in the velocity vectors---between two points on the circle separated by [tex]\Delta\theta[/tex].

Why don't you show what you've done and perhaps we can fix it.
 
You have everything EXCEPT a formula for [tex]\inline{\Delta v}[/tex]. This is the real physics; you have to think about it. The rest is just formula manipulation. I remember when I was in high school, I thought about this very thing for days, because I had difficulty coming to terms with how vectors add; I did not understand [tex]\inline{a=\Delta v/\Delta t}[/tex] as a VECTOR equation. But I put in the effort and was rewarded with a career in physics.
 
I haven't looked at either of those links, but I remember first deriving the formula by creating a proportion between the triangle the velocity and acceleration vectors created, and the triangle that the 2 radii and the chord created.
 
cant anyone actually give the answer? i promise that it isn't homework and that i have tried!
 
Try this.
Draw a vector for r with a vector for v on the end (will be 90 degrees from this), then a little time later examine what would happen. The arclength s= r theta is an approximation from geometry.

I haven't done this yet myself, but i am working on it
 
  • #10
for the algebraic way you are looking for you go from v = d/t and find d from the other eqns and get v = r omega
Then with acceleration, a = v / t, substitue the v and you get r omega / t, v=r/t so a = v omega, the trick is a = v^2 omega / v = v^2 omega / ( r omega ) and cancel.

BUT this gives you nothing (not exactly true). Calculus method and geometry - what i siad to do in last post, work the same and give you a good in sight into what happened.
This is related to how Feynman got to grips with QED.
 
  • #11
Although with the geometrical method i can't avoid the final 'trick' bit to go from a = r omega^ 2 to v^2 / r
Doh
 
  • #12
Originally posted by jimmy p
cant anyone actually give the answer?
We have. Several times over. You just don't seem to want to accept it! :smile:
 
  • #13
lol sorry, i wasnt concentrating the other night when i wrote that, thanks guys!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
3K