Acceleration perpendicular to velocity in 2D

AI Thread Summary
If acceleration is constant and perpendicular to velocity, the object's speed remains constant, indicating circular motion. This is due to the centripetal acceleration, which maintains a constant radius and speed. When acceleration is not constant, speed may change, depending on the direction and magnitude of the forces involved. The work-kinetic energy theorem supports this, as work done on the system is zero when force and velocity are perpendicular, resulting in unchanged kinetic energy. Therefore, the relationship between acceleration and velocity is crucial in determining speed consistency.
tmpr
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
If the magnitude of acceleration is constant, and acceleration is perpendicular to velocity, is speed constant? Also, is speed not constant when the magnitude of acceleration is not constant? How would I show this?

I tried to do this:

If position is p(t)=(x(t),y(t)), then velocity is p'(t)=(x'(t),y'(t)) and acceleration is p''(t)=(x''(t),y''(t)). If the magnitude of acceleration is constant, |p''(t)|=k. If acceleration and velocity are perpendicular, p'(t) \cdot p''(t) = x'(t)x''(t) + y'(t)y''(t) = 0.

But I'm stuck here.

How do I show |p'(t)|=c for some constant?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the acceleration is perpendicular that means your object is moving in a circular path. So there is a centripetal force and hence acceleration acting.

a=v2/r, so 'a' and 'r' are constants.
 
rock.freak667 said:
If the acceleration is perpendicular that means your object is moving in a circular path. So there is a centripetal force and hence acceleration acting.

a=v2/r, so 'a' and 'r' are constants.

OK, but can you show me how you would deduce the fact that the object is moving with circular motion, given the assumption that acceleration is perpendicular to velocity?
 
tmpr said:
OK, but can you show me how you would deduce the fact that the object is moving with circular motion, given the assumption that acceleration is perpendicular to velocity?

Force is in the direction of acceleration, meaning that normally the acceleration and velocity would lie in the same plane. As far as I know, the only time acceleration is perpendicular to velocity is during circular motion.
 
Assuming that there is no external forces other than the one causing the acceleration.

Use the work-kinetic energy theorem:

In that case:

\Delta T =- \Delta W = -\int \vec{F}\cdot d\vec{r}

From here you should be able to show that T doesn't change if a is always perpendicular to the velocity of the particle (write dr=v(t)dt), and thus speed stays the same.
 
Last edited:
If acceleration and velocity are perpendicular:
a1v1+a2v2=0
but that is nothing else than the time derivative of v2, that is speed is costant whenever a and v are perpendicular.

But I like G01 explanation. It focus on the physics of the system.
If force and velocity are perpendicular (forse perpendicular to the direction of motion), work made on the system is zero, which implies that the kinetic energy (and so speed) is costant.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top