Centripetal Force for non point particle

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the centripetal force required for an irregularly shaped object attached to a rope and spinning with angular velocity. It questions whether the force exerted by the rope can be determined by integrating the contributions from all constituent particles of the object. The response clarifies that while forces are vector quantities and not all forces act in parallel, the total force can still be derived from the sum of the forces on individual particles. Additionally, it emphasizes that momentum and force are additive, allowing for the total force to be calculated based on the collective momentum changes of the object's parts. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately determining the centripetal force in non-point particle scenarios.
Electric to be
Messages
152
Reaction score
6
Say there is a point particle attached to a rope of radius r. It spins with angular velocity w. As a result, the force needed to keep this particle in circular motion is:

F = mv2/r

However, now say I have some irregular shaped object, with say some constant surface density for simplicity. It is also attached to a rope of radius r and spins with angular velocity w.

My question, is the force needed for the rope to exert at the base of the object the area integral of dm*v2/r = dm w2*r over the object? If this is true, what is the intuition? Why can I sum up the forces needed for all the constituent particles and say that is the force applied by the rope at the base of the object?

Another thought in my head was that you can think of translational forces as being applied directly to the center of mass of the object. Does the math somehow work out that the force necessary is F = mv2/r, where m is the total mass, and r is the center of mass?

A third possible answer I assume, would be none of the above and would stem from an actual derivation of centripetal force for the general case, and not just for a point particle. I suspect it may be this, since I've never actually derived the force for a point particle personally.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Electric to be said:
My question, is the force needed for the rope to exert at the base of the object the area integral of dm*v2/r = dm w2*r over the object?
Almost. Remember that force is a vector. The centripetal force for a piece on the leading edge of the object and the centripetal force for a piece on the trailing edge of the object are not parallel. The magnitude of the total force will be less than the sum of the magnitudes of the incremental forces.

If this is true, what is the intuition? Why can I sum up the forces needed for all the constituent particles and say that is the force applied by the rope at the base of the object?
Momentum and force are additive quantities. The rate of change of momentum of the object is the sum of the rates of change of momentum of its pieces. The total force required to produce this total rate of change follows from that.
 
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