- #1
crudux_cruo
- 23
- 11
As I understand it, when a body undergoes uniform circular motion its velocity does not change in magnitude but instead direction. This change in velocity, or acceleration, is directed inward towards the center of the circle. If a body was not experiencing a net centripetal acceleration, then that body would not be experiencing uniform circular motion. Therefore, the body must be experiencing a net force in the direction of the centripetal acceleration. Would a body tangentially accelerating experience a net centripetal acceleration as well?
Centripetal force is not the name for a specific type of force, but a generic name for the force/(sum of forces?) that are acting in the direction of that acceleration. In other words, these are forces that if removed would result in the body resuming linear motion. So at any instant if the centripetal force is removed, the body's inertia continues its linear path, with its speed being equal to the tangential velocity at the final moment of circular motion.
Using an example of a car making a turn on a level road, during every instant of the turn the car's inertia will keep its velocity tangent to the turn. The car does not continue in the direction of the tangential velocity, so the static friction must be keeping it on the circular path.
1)Is the friction static because the car doesn't move outside the circular path, and it's acting against the inertia of the car?
2)If the friction suddenly became kinetic, would that imply the car slides out of the turn and into a straight line?
3)Does the friction that is driving the car forward through this turn the same as the centripetal force?
Am I taking a simplification of a problem too literally and introducing things that don't belong? I would try to work this out myself but I'm not even sure if these are valid questions. I feel like I am taking a simple problem and being far too literal about it, but the concept of static friction acting over a distance is very confusing to me. I guess it technically doesn't? The friction is perpendicular to displacement so no work is done by it. At this point, I'm not even sure if that's correct.
Finally, I think I understand that the centrifugal 'force' is just how someone on a rotating referencing frame would explain their inertia and why they'd feel they are being 'pushed'. I came across this post and found these comments under the question.
Am I misunderstanding something? I thought centrifugal 'forces' weren't actual forces, and that the tension in the rope would be from whatever was pulling the bucket into circular motion. Or am I just misreading an attempt at irony or something?
I've been spinning my wheels, so any insight is appreciated.
Centripetal force is not the name for a specific type of force, but a generic name for the force/(sum of forces?) that are acting in the direction of that acceleration. In other words, these are forces that if removed would result in the body resuming linear motion. So at any instant if the centripetal force is removed, the body's inertia continues its linear path, with its speed being equal to the tangential velocity at the final moment of circular motion.
Using an example of a car making a turn on a level road, during every instant of the turn the car's inertia will keep its velocity tangent to the turn. The car does not continue in the direction of the tangential velocity, so the static friction must be keeping it on the circular path.
1)Is the friction static because the car doesn't move outside the circular path, and it's acting against the inertia of the car?
2)If the friction suddenly became kinetic, would that imply the car slides out of the turn and into a straight line?
3)Does the friction that is driving the car forward through this turn the same as the centripetal force?
Am I taking a simplification of a problem too literally and introducing things that don't belong? I would try to work this out myself but I'm not even sure if these are valid questions. I feel like I am taking a simple problem and being far too literal about it, but the concept of static friction acting over a distance is very confusing to me. I guess it technically doesn't? The friction is perpendicular to displacement so no work is done by it. At this point, I'm not even sure if that's correct.
Finally, I think I understand that the centrifugal 'force' is just how someone on a rotating referencing frame would explain their inertia and why they'd feel they are being 'pushed'. I came across this post and found these comments under the question.
Am I misunderstanding something? I thought centrifugal 'forces' weren't actual forces, and that the tension in the rope would be from whatever was pulling the bucket into circular motion. Or am I just misreading an attempt at irony or something?
I've been spinning my wheels, so any insight is appreciated.
Last edited: