I Coriolis acceleration of a projectile launched at the equator

AI Thread Summary
Coriolis acceleration is not zero for a projectile launched from the equator at an angle; it only becomes zero when the launch angle is parallel to the surface. When a ball is launched at a 45-degree angle northward, its velocity vector is not parallel to the rotational vector, resulting in a measurable Coriolis effect. The standard formula for calculating Coriolis acceleration supports this, indicating that deflections occur even at the equator for angled launches. Long-range ballistic travel is affected by this Coriolis acceleration, leading to significant lateral deviations. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurate long-range projectile calculations.
jk185
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a question about the Coriolis acceleration experienced by a projectile launched from the surface of a rotating body.

Say a ball is launched at 45 degree angle relative to the surface at some initial velocity v0. Let's further specify that the ball is launched due north from the equator (i.e. latitude = 0). I want to calculate the Coriolis acceleration (and its x, y, z components) that is experienced by the ball. Since the launch occurs at the equator, most would say that the Coriolis acceleration is zero, but is this true? Isn't the Coriolis acceleration only 0 at the equator since the launch angle is assumed to be 0 (i.e. the motion is parallel to the surface), meaning the velocity vector is parallel to the rotational vector? If a ball is launched at some angle relative the surface, the velocity vector is no longer parallel to the surface, meaning that there should actually be a Coriolis acceleration that is experienced by the ball.

Also, I am particularly interested in long-range ballistic travel.

Is there something that I am missing here? I have looked everywhere for an answer to this question but haven't found anything that specifically addresses this question.

Any help is appreciated here. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jk185 said:
Isn't the Coriolis acceleration only 0 at the equator since the launch angle is assumed to be 0 (i.e. the motion is parallel to the surface), meaning the velocity vector is parallel to the rotational vector? If a ball is launched at some angle relative the surface, the velocity vector is no longer parallel to the surface, meaning that there should actually be a Coriolis acceleration that is experienced by the ball.
That seems to be what the standard formula for calculating the Coriolis acceleration ##a_C=2\vec{\Omega}\times\vec{v}## says, yes.
 
https://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/FC-APPENDIX-B-8IN-55.html said:
1652974773254.png
Look at the Latitude 0 section and the columns for a target at 0 degrees (North) or 180 degrees (South). Look at the row for 30,000 yard range. A shot at those angles is deflected 42 yards left (west) when firing north and 42 yards right (west) when firing south. This is presumably due to Coriolis acting on the arching shot.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top