Circular motion: normal force on a loop

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a pilot experiencing forces while flying through a vertical loop, specifically focusing on the normal force exerted by the seat at the bottom of the loop. The context includes discussions about weight, mass, and the application of Newton's laws in circular motion.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the difference between lb-force and lb-mass, questioning the correct interpretation of the weight of the pilot. There is discussion about the equations used to calculate forces and the discrepancies noted in the answer key.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into unit conversions and clarifying the definitions of mass and weight in the context of the problem. Some participants have offered guidance on the correct units to use, while others are still grappling with the implications of these definitions on the calculations.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the use of lb and lbf, and how these relate to the calculations needed for the problem. Participants are also considering the implications of using different unit systems for their calculations.

Beth N
Messages
41
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


A 180lb pilot flies a vertical loop with radius 2000 ft at 350 mi/h. With what force does the seat fress upward against him at the bottom of the loop?
Problem 6.21
IMG_5728.JPG

Homework Equations


##F=ma##
##F_c=\frac {mv^2} {r} ##

The Attempt at a Solution


There seems to be a discrepancy in the answer key provided? On the first line the equation they came up is ## F= \frac {mv^2} {r} + mg## . But when the number was plugged in, it seems like they use the equation ##F= \frac {mv^2} {gr} + m ## Which equation is correct? My own answer corresponds with the first equation, which is why I get a different numerical answer.

Thank you!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5728.JPG
    IMG_5728.JPG
    55.9 KB · Views: 1,049
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you familiar with the difference between lb-force and lb-mass? What is the weight (in lb-force) of a body that has a mass of 180 lb-mass?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Beth N
I'm more familiar with the unit with kilogram. But I guess the weight in lb-force would be mass in lb * 32.2 ft/second^2 ? (as opposed to 9.8 m/second^2 for kg). So the weight in lb-force of a body with mass 180 lb is 5796 lb? Still, I haven't quite understood the discrepancy in the answer key.
 
Oh wait I get what you are saying now. 180-lb as indicated in the book's question is the weight (m*a), not the mass (m). I didn't realize that. Thank you!
 
Beth N said:
I'm more familiar with the unit with kilogram. But I guess the weight in lb-force would be mass in lb * 32.2 ft/second^2 ? (as opposed to 9.8 m/second^2 for kg). So the weight in lb-force of a body with mass 180 lb is 5796 lb? Still, I haven't quite understood the discrepancy in the answer key.
You really should use lb only for the mass unit and lbf for the force unit. The weight of a body with mass x lb in standard gravity is by definition x lbf, not 32.2x lbf. This is by definition of the pound force unit. There is also a similar kg related unit that sees very little use, kgf.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Beth N
In Imperial units, the weight of 1 lb-mass is 1 lb-force. Crazy, huh? This all resolves itself when we specify that the mass to use in applying Newton's second law using Imperial units is the slug, which is the mass in lb-mass divided by 32.2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Beth N
Yes, but be sure you use the correct value for mass in the mv^2/r term!
Edit: oh already answered, I’m a bit late.
 
Beth N said:
I'm more familiar with the unit with kilogram. But I guess the weight in lb-force would be mass in lb * 32.2 ft/second^2 ? (as opposed to 9.8 m/second^2 for kg). So the weight in lb-force of a body with mass 180 lb is 5796 lb? Still, I haven't quite understood the discrepancy in the answer key.
I would convert the whole thing to kg and m/s, then when you get the final force, in Newtons, convert that into imperial units of force.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K