Centripetal Force Experiment: Measuring Acceleration on a Turntable

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around an experiment measuring centripetal forces using a turntable and a ball that leaves dots at equal time intervals. Participants analyze the relationship between the position of the ball and its centripetal acceleration, questioning the relevance of plotting the parallel radius versus time instead of the perpendicular component. There is confusion about the expected mathematical function, with one participant suggesting that a sine function might be appropriate for the parallel component, while others argue that the perpendicular component should be considered for a complete understanding of centripetal acceleration. The conversation also touches on the nature of forces involved, including the distinction between centripetal and centrifugal forces. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexity of analyzing motion on a turntable and the theoretical implications of the observed data.
SN1987a
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I did this experiment on centripetal forces, where we rolled a ball onto a turntable and it left dots at equal intervals of time.

For every dot I was asked to measure the component of its position (from the center) parallel to its track (the perpendicular disance, along the path, between the point and a radius of the turntable). Plotting these, i get a radius vs time graph that looks like a sine curve (shifted by Pi/2).

I know that the centripetal acceleration is given by
a(t)=\omega^2r(t), with \omega known

So if I fit a curve through my points, and then integrate the function, I am supposed to get the change in speed (which i know).
v_0-v_i=\omega^2 \int ^{r_0}_{r_i}r(t) dt

Now the first thing that's misterious to me is why am I asked to plot the parallel radius versus time, since I'm looking for centripital acceleration, which is radial? I think I should rather measure the perpendicular component of r.

My question however is what should that function be, theoretically? Because I don't think it is a sine function. This again, relates to the question above. If it's the prallel component I should graph, then it makes sense to obtain a sine function. But if we're talking about the perpendicular component, then the function should have no uper bound, i.e., if the ball were unconstrained, it would fly off the turntable.

PS: The function I fitted is a completely unrelated one, and there is no conceptual justification for using it except the fact that i think it fits nice :-p
 

Attachments

  • centripetal.jpg
    centripetal.jpg
    24.3 KB · Views: 458
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You haven't said what would have *caused* a centripetal acceleration.
If the acceleration is zero, then the radial distance from the table center
(the hypotenuse of a rt triangle, sqrt(y^2 + x^2) , with x=vt and y=const).

Usually we'd use components parallel to the velocity and perpendicular to v.
The "centripetal" component is the one perp to v - it does NOT need to
point toward the center of some coordinate system.

Components that are radial from the turntable center and perp to the r_vec
would only be really useful if a force was directed in the radial direction.
 
lightgrav said:
Usually we'd use components parallel to the velocity and perpendicular to v.
The "centripetal" component is the one perp to v - it does NOT need to
point toward the center of some coordinate system.
I know it does not need to point in towards the center, but only needs to be perpendicular to the v vector.


lightgrav said:
Components that are radial from the turntable center and perp to the r_vec
would only be really useful if a force was directed in the radial direction.
That is precisely my question. Isn't the centrifugal force directed radially outward?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top