Doubt with centripetal acceleration

AI Thread Summary
Centripetal acceleration is defined in two ways: a_c = v^2/r and a_c = rω^2, where ω is related to tangential velocity. The discussion highlights confusion regarding the use of tangential velocity (v_t) versus total velocity (v) in these equations. It is clarified that in the second definition, "r" refers to the polar radius, not necessarily the radius of curvature. The user seeks to understand why the second definition uses ω derived from tangential velocity instead of total velocity, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the terms. Ultimately, both definitions are valid but apply to different contexts in curvilinear motion.
pc2-brazil
Messages
198
Reaction score
3
Good afternoon,

For a body in a curvilinear motion moving with velocity \vec{v}, velocity can be divided into two components (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity#Two_dimensions" Wikipedia article): a component parallel to the position vector (the radius), which changes the magnitude of the radius and is given by dr/dt, and a component perpendicular to the radius vector, called tangential velocity (vt or v_{\bot}), which changes the direction of the radius vector.
The angular velocity is determined by the the tangential velocity:
\omega = \frac{v_t}{r}
And the centripetal acceleration is given by:
a_c = \frac{v^2}{r} (1)
My question is: I have seen, in many places, that the centripetal acceleration can be written as:
a_c = r\omega^2 = \frac{v_t^2}{r} (2)
But it doesn't seem right. Why is it defined like this so frequently?
EDIT: I realized that, in definition (2), "r" is the polar radius, and not necessarily the radius of curvature of the trajectory. Definition (1) is true when "r" is the radius of curvature. Am I right?

Thank you in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
At any given point on the circle, the velocity is the tangential velocity.
 
mathman said:
At any given point on the circle, the velocity is the tangential velocity.
Yes, but I defined tangential velocity as the component of velocity perpendicular to the position vector, like the Wikipedia article to which I linked.
What I'm trying to understand is why definition (2) uses \omega = vt/r, while it seems that it should use v, not vt, in order to be compatible with (1) (I must be doing some confusion here).
 
Last edited:
I am not sure what the confusion is, but vt=v.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top