Conceptual problem involving centripetal accel

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the minimum tangential velocity needed for riders to stick to the wall of a rotating amusement park ride, expressed in terms of the radius (R), the coefficient of static friction (μ), and gravitational acceleration (g). The correct formula derived is V = (gR/μ)^(0.5). Participants clarify the forces at play, emphasizing that the frictional force acts vertically to counterbalance weight, while the normal force provides the necessary centripetal force. A common point of confusion is the role of friction, which only affects vertical forces, not horizontal ones. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for solving the problem correctly.
physics noob
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
amusement park ride...basically a large cylinder rotating about a vertical axis. when it is spinning fast enough the floor is dropped out and the riders stick to the wall well above the floor. find the minimum Vtangential needed. express answer in terms of R of circle, coefficent of static friction (mew)s and gravitational acell (g)... seems easy right, and it probably is, but i don't know why my answer is not right...btw the correct answer is

V= (gR/mews)^.5

here's what i got so far...

x direction forces) V^2/ (r) * m - static coeff *n = 0

y direction forces) static coeff *n - mg = 0


so mg = sf *n so v^2/ R = g so



V = (g/R)^.5 where does the sfriction coeff come from?!?

i worked backwards and saw that is must have been multiplied by
v^2/R...now why would you do that... thanks in advanced
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well this is actually a 2-D problem, the FBD for the rider should be something as follows.

We have the frictional force upwards, a weight force downwards, and a normal force radially inwards.

Now use sumF = ma

In the vertical direction we have
Friction - Weight = 0
u*N = mg

In the radially inward direction we have

Normal = Centripetal acceleration
N = mv^2/r

thus

u*m*v^2/r = m*g

u*v^2/r = g

v = sqrt(r*g/u)
 
vertically, mg=(mew)*N i.e. equilibrium

horizontally, N= mv^2/r.

i.e. not equilibrium, but rather the normal force provides the centripetal force.

substitute N into above, get V=(g*r/(mew))^0.5.

typically, when someone learns centripetal force for the 1st time, they get confused with the whole forces producing the centripetal force.

centripetal force is the net force acting on the object, it is the sum of all external forces. If this net force is not directed perpendicular to the velocity of the object, then the path is not going to be circular.

the object is not in equilibrium on horizontal plane, but is accelerated.

you need to sit back and think deeply about this.
 
thanks a lot guys,,,, what through me off was i thought there was friction on the horizontal, but it seems it only exists on the vertical forces, i really appreciate the help, this site is amazing... thanks for your time
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top