- #1

- 70

- 1

Although the two formlas are the same Mathematicly but isnt Fc porportional to the inverse of the r as it is shown in the first one. So why is r directly porportional to Fc in the second one?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Epsillon
- Start date

- #1

- 70

- 1

Although the two formlas are the same Mathematicly but isnt Fc porportional to the inverse of the r as it is shown in the first one. So why is r directly porportional to Fc in the second one?

- #2

olgranpappy

Homework Helper

- 1,271

- 3

Although the two formlas are the same Mathematicly but isnt Fc porportional to the inverse of the r as it is shown in the first one. So why is r directly porportional to Fc in the second one?

because if the angular velocity (2pi/T) is constant then v is directly proportional to r. Also, you are missing an m in your 2nd formula.

- #3

- 70

- 1

No but isnt it supposed to be inversly proportional?

- #4

olgranpappy

Homework Helper

- 1,271

- 3

No but isnt it supposed to be inversly proportional?

did you read what i wrote?

- #5

- 70

- 1

Yes I understand this now thanks for the help :)

Share: