Centripetal force lab: meaning of slope of radius vs Fc graph

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a lab experiment involving centripetal force, where participants analyze a graph plotting radius against centripetal force (Fc). The original poster (OP) calculated a slope of 0.17 from this graph and is uncertain about its physical significance, questioning whether it relates to mass or acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the meaning of the slope in the context of the relationship between Fc and radius, with some questioning the constancy of Fc and others discussing the implications of the slope's units. There are inquiries about the role of frequency in the equation and whether it can be considered constant throughout the experiment.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and clarifications regarding the relationship between the variables involved. Some participants suggest that the slope may not represent a significant physical quantity, while others point out inconsistencies in the OP's assumptions about constant values in the experiment.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of specific values for mass and centripetal force, as well as references to a lab procedure that may influence the interpretation of the graph. The OP has indicated that the graph was derived from previous calculations involving frequency and Fc, raising questions about the appropriateness of the graph's setup.

5.98e24
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I have a graph with the radius on the x-axis and Fc on the y axis. I had to then calculate the slope of this linear relationship. I did that, and I got 0.17.

The problem is that I don't know what this represents. mass? acceleration??

Homework Equations


Fc = m4π^2rf^2

btw π = pi = 3.14

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to isolate for the slope of the line, which would be making the left side equal to Fc/r.
This is what I got:

Fc/r = m4πf^2

I know that [STRIKE]Fc[/STRIKE] mass is kept constant.. then I have no idea where to go from there :S
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
i don't think it represents something in general,
its just like change in Fc with unit change in radius ...
 
How can F_c be kept constant if you got a slope of 0.17 for an F_c vs. r graph?
 
Ah whoops! I made a mistake; Fc isn't constant. I was looking at a graph I extrapolated from. Apologies!

I mean that mass is constant.

So does it really not represent anything significant?
 
gdbb said:
How can F_c be kept constant if you got a slope of 0.17 for an F_c vs. r graph?

Oh! I didnt notice OP wrote Fc is constant.
I Need lenses now ... :biggrin:
 
Well, force divided by radius gives units of \frac{kg}{s^2}, which, technically, is the unit for surface tension. However, I don't think you wanted to find that surface tension is equal to 0.17 \frac{kg}{s^2}.

You could just note that, as the radius increased from r = a to r = b meters, the centripetal force increase by 0.17 Newtons per meter.
 
you mean \frac{kg}{m^2}.
 
I'm talking about surface tension in fluid dynamics. I was just trying to give an extreme example of how little "kilograms per second squared" means in a Circular Motion context, as \frac{kg}{s^2} is also the unit of k, the spring constant, which is much more likely to be the case in the Introductory Physics sub-forum.
 
What is "f" in your equation, is it angular velocity? Is it 2*pi or 2*pi^2, you show it both ways? Does your graph have a "y' intercept? What is it? You say the slope is .17 what is the rest of the equation in the form Y=mx+b? Y is Fc, x is the radius in meters, the slope has units of Newtons/meters or kg/s^2. I am guessing the slope is mass* angular velocity^2
 
  • #10
gdbb said:
I'm talking about surface tension in fluid dynamics. I was just trying to give an extreme example of how little "kilograms per second squared" means in a Circular Motion context, as \frac{kg}{s^2} is also the unit of k, the spring constant, which is much more likely to be the case in the Introductory Physics sub-forum.

Oh yes ... i got a bit confused :shy:
 
  • #11
The y-intercept is 0.

f is the frequency.

The only thing is that we didn't learn about angular velocity. Is that the only thing that it can represent?
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Welcome back to PF.

5.98e24 said:

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to isolate for the slope of the line, which would be making the left side equal to Fc/r.
This is what I got:

Fc/r = m4πf^2

I know that mass is kept constant.. then I have no idea where to go from there :S
Okay, so the slope equals 4 \pi^2 m f^2. If you know m and the value of the slope, you can calculate what the constant f is. Or, if you know f and the slope, you can calculate what m is. But -- was frequency f really a constant throughout your experiment?

By the way, does your lab apparatus resemble something like the following?

ucm_app.gif
 
  • #13
Redbelly98 said:
Welcome back to PF.Okay, so the slope equals 4 \pi^2 m f^2. If you know m and the value of the slope, you can calculate what the constant f is. Or, if you know f and the slope, you can calculate what m is. But -- was frequency f really a constant throughout your experiment?

By the way, does your lab apparatus resemble something like the following?

ucm_app.gif
frequency f was not constant. The only constant values were Fc (centripetal force), which was 0.5N, and mass, which was 0.03kg.

are you saying that I can't use the equation if f isn't constant?

Yes, it is similar.
 
  • #14
5.98e24 said:
frequency f was not constant. The only constant values were Fc (centripetal force), which was 0.5N, and mass, which was 0.03kg.

are you saying that I can't use the equation if f isn't constant?

Yes, it is similar.
Thanks, that helps explain better what is going on.

Something is wrong here. If Fc is constant, and you plot it on the y-axis, you should get a horizontal line, so slope=0.

It looks like the variables here are f and r, so the graph should involve those quantities instead. But, just graphing f vs. r will not give a straight line. Did you get any instruction in what you are supposed to actually graph?
 
  • #15
Redbelly98 said:
Thanks, that helps explain better what is going on.

Something is wrong here. If Fc is constant, and you plot it on the y-axis, you should get a horizontal line, so slope=0.

It looks like the variables here are f and r, so the graph should involve those quantities instead. But, just graphing f vs. r will not give a straight line. Did you get any instruction in what you are supposed to actually graph?
This was similar to our procedure starting on page 4: http://schools.hwdsb.on.ca/highland/files/2011/01/centripetal_force.pdf

So basically the question I'm trying to answer now is #23.

The graph of radius and Fc was made after doing #20 and #21 in the PDF. The values of Fc were extrapolated from a graph of f^2 on the x-axis and Fc on the y axis, seen in #20.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Got it.

Looks like you have already seen that the graph is linear or a direct proportion, and that the slope should equal 4 \pi^2 m f^2. You can measure the slope from your graph and, since you know m and f, compare the measured-from-the-graph slope value with what you get by calculating 4 \pi^2 m f^2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K