Centripetal acceleration geometry

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the relationship \(\Delta V/V = s/R\) in uniform circular motion, emphasizing the geometric aspects of the problem. The user is attempting to demonstrate that the segment \(S\) forms a right triangle with \(\Delta V\) when vectorially adding the velocities \(V_1\) and \(V_2\). They recognize that the angle between \(S\) and \(\Delta V\) is a right angle, as it inscribes the diameter of the circle, but struggle to prove that \(\Delta V\) intersects the circle at this diameter. The conversation also highlights the importance of using appropriate formulas and understanding the relationship between angles and arcs in circle geometry. Ultimately, the user acknowledges that their initial question has evolved into a purely geometric inquiry.
richardbsmith
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
This is probably a geometry question more that a physics question. I am trying to prove that in uniform circular motion \Delta V/V= s/R.

I am basically trying to show that S forms a right triangle with \DeltaV, when V{1} is added to V{2} as a vector. (This is to demonstrate that the triangles are similar.)

I understand that the angle formed by S and \DeltaV is a right angle because it obviously inscribes the diameter. I just cannot seem to find a satisfactory proof that \DeltaV must necessarily intersect the circle at the diameter.

Probably not explaining this very well.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
richardbsmith said:
This is probably a geometry question more that a physics question. I am trying to prove that in uniform circular motion \Delta V/V= s/R.

I am basically trying to show that S forms a right triangle with \DeltaV, when V{1} is added to V{2} as a vector. (This is to demonstrate that the triangles are similar.)

I understand that the angle formed by S and \DeltaV is a right angle because it obviously inscribes the diameter. I just cannot seem to find a satisfactory proof that \DeltaV must necessarily intersect the circle at the diameter.

Probably not explaining this very well.
If you are solving geometry problems with both distances and velocities involved, then you
are probably making a mistake: remember that they have different units! (unless you study relativistic theory)
For the mentioned problem you should use formulas:
s=R*fi (fi is angle of the part of orbit traveled in radians)
\DeltaV=V*sin(fi') (fi' is the angle between the old and new velocity vector)

Prove that fi=fi' and use sin(fi)=fi (for small angles) and you will get \Delta V/V= s/R
 
Thank you so much for responding. I think though my question which started with uniform motion and delta V, is now simply a geometry question.

I will try to put up a drawing of what I so pitifully tried to explain.

uniformcircularmotion.png


Here is another image with a different angle and size of the tangents.
uniformcircularmotion2.png


I have tried several approaches, but I cannot prove that the angle formed from tangent 1 to tangent 2 to the circle must inscribe a 180 degree arc and must be a right angle.
 
From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscribed_angle_theorem
In geometry, the inscribed angle theorem states that an angle θ inscribed in a circle is half of the central angle 2θ that subtends the same arc on the circle.
So, to get an inscribed angle of 90° you need a central angle of 180°(=diameter line).
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top