Accelerometer measures non inertial or inertial ref. frame

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of accelerometers as either inertial or non-inertial sensors, particularly in the context of measuring centrifugal acceleration when mounted on a pendulum. It is clarified that accelerometers measure the net acceleration from all forces acting on them, excluding gravity, which can lead to confusion regarding their readings in different reference frames. The conversation highlights that centrifugal acceleration can be interpreted from both inertial and non-inertial perspectives, affecting the sign of the readings. Additionally, the concept of accelerometers being "self-orienting" is questioned, especially in relation to their use in seismic surveys where orientation corrections are made based on apparent gravity. Overall, the complexities of interpreting accelerometer data in dynamic systems are emphasized.
ylim
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi there,

I am doing some measurement using an accelerometer. I am rather confused with regards to whether I should be see an accelerometer as a non-inertial or an inertial sensor.

I have with me 2 commercial accelerometers evaluation board (analog to computer interface). One by the analog/crossbow collaboration board tells the static g as a +1g value, which is seen as a non-inertial reference frame whereas the other one by ST microelectronics with some third party tell static g as -1 (the inertial ref. frame).

Both of them tells positive acceleration swing from a positive axis acceleration and vice versa (this is okay).

Say now if I am interested to tell if I should be considering the centrifugal acceleration (I am mounting the accelerometer to a pendulem). Should I be taking the centrifugal acceleration as a non inertial or an inertial one? I am assuming that based on the fact that (Both of them tells positive acceleration swing from a positive axis acceleration and vice versa (this is okay).), I will be seeing a negative centrifugal acceleration (given positive direction to skyward). So I will not be able to see a non inertial centrifugal centrifugal accleration?

Hope to hear from you guys.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Accelerometers are inertial-frame sensors. The reason an accelerometer registers 1g upward when it is not moving relative to the Earth can be explained from a classical physics perspective or from a general relativity perspective.

First, a little factoid. No device can be made that directly measures the force due to gravity. A wonderful sci-fi device called a "gravity shield" would be needed to perform such a measurement. An accelerometer is not a sci-fi device. It cannot measure the acceleration due to gravity.

From a classical physics perspective, an accelerometer is a device that measures the acceleration due to all forces acting on the accelerometer case except gravity. Suppose we have an accelerometer mounted on the surface of non-rotating planet with a gravitational force equal to that of the Earth. The downward gravitational force on the accelerometer case is balanced by an upward normal force exerted by the surface of the planet. (Note well: this is not a third law action-reaction pair. It is something different.) The accelerometer cannot sense the downward acceleration due to gravity, but it can sense the upward acceleration due to the normal force. Net result: the accelerometer registers 1g upward.

In general relativity, gravitation is a fictitious force rather than a "real" force. The GR point of view is that an accelerometer is a device that measures the acceleration due to all real forces acting on the accelerometer case, period. An accelerometer mounted on a the surface of non-rotating planet is not in an inertial frame! From the GR perspective, an accelerometer measures acceleration relative to an inertial frame, which in the case of the accelerometer on the surface of a planet is accelerating toward the center of the planet. The accelerometer is accelerating up relative to this frame. Net result: the accelerometer registers 1g upward.
 
Hi DH,

Thank you for your reply.

I was hoping that you can answer my doubt though.

>>Say now if I am interested to tell if I should be considering the centrifugal acceleration (I am mounting the accelerometer to a pendulem). Should I be taking the centrifugal acceleration as a non inertial or an inertial one? I am assuming that based on the fact that (Both of them tells positive acceleration swing from a positive axis acceleration and vice versa (this is okay).), I will be seeing a negative centrifugal acceleration (given positive direction to skyward). So I will not be able to see a non inertial centrifugal centrifugal accleration?


Regards,
 
If you mount an accelerometer to a pendulum, what real (non-fictitious) forces other than gravity act on the accelerometer?

One thing to keep in mind when mounting an accelerometer to a pendulum is that the accelerometer's case frame is rotating.
 
D H said:
If you mount an accelerometer to a pendulum, what real (non-fictitious) forces other than gravity act on the accelerometer?

One thing to keep in mind when mounting an accelerometer to a pendulum is that the accelerometer's case frame is rotating.

1. translational acceleration
and
2. rotation?

Centrifugal can be seen as either a non inertial or an inertial ref. frame, that will account for differing signs. That is my concern.
 
Hi DH,
I have this question concerning accelerometers. I believe accelerometers measure "non gravitational" acceleration but I am unclear about the principles behind the belief by some authors that accelerometers are "self orienting". I am particularly interested in this because latest seismic surveys being carried out use 3 component accelerometers to measure P and S waves and no matter the orientation of the accelerometer it can be corrected based on "apparent gravity". I know accelerometers don't measure gravity, it measures the force acting on it wrt to a gravitational field but can't understand how these accelerometers can measure the force acting on it from the earth(as a result of seismic energy being generated by a seismic source) and at the time retain its orientation for onward correction.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top