Equations relating changes between rotating and inertial frames

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between acceleration in inertial and rotating frames, specifically through the equation a(I) = a(R) + 2(omega)Xv(R) + (omega)X(omega)Xr. It highlights the application of this equation to systems like Foucault's pendulum, where acceleration changes need to be accounted for. A key point raised is the confusion about applying the equation when an object, such as a train, moves at constant velocity, questioning whether the simpler relation V(I) = V(R) + omega X (V(R)) is sufficient. Clarification is provided that the correct form for velocity is V(I) = V(R) + omega X r, emphasizing that the original equation still accounts for Coriolis acceleration even when velocity is constant. The discussion concludes with an understanding of when to apply these equations in relation to inertial and rotating frames.
bman!!
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
i understand the reason and steps leading to the equation that relates acceleration in the inertial frame to acceleration in the rotating frame i.e.

a(I) = a(R) + 2(omega)Xv(R) + (omega)X(omega) X r

a(I) = acceleration in inertial frame
a(R) = acceleration in rotating frame
omega = rotation vector
X = cross product
v(R) = velocity in rotating frame

r = position vector


now i understand why this (or a rearrangement thereof) can be applied to a system like focaults pendulum, becuase you have acceleration going on, so obviously you would want to relate the changes between the two frames.

however, everyone remembers the simple problems where you simply use the coriolis term to calculate the direction and magnitude of the coriolis force on something like a moving train (i.e. 500 tonne train moving north at 100kph experiences a coriolis force of something liek 1500N eastwards)

however it struck me, that if the train is moving with constant velocity, then surely the above equation doesn't apply? and surely the equation linking the two vectors a together is simply the very original relation between the two frames for vector that is fixed in the rotating frame namely:

V(I) = V(R) + omega X (V(R))

or is it more subtle than this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your original equation shows that there is a Coriolis acceleration even if v is constant wilth respect to the Earth. That just means a(R)=0.
 
pam said:
Your original equation shows that there is a Coriolis acceleration even if v is constant wilth respect to the Earth. That just means a(R)=0.

ah i see, that makes sense.

but when would

V(I) = V(R) + omega X (V(R))

be applicable? or is it just an intermediary?
 
bman! said:
but when would

V(I) = V(R) + omega X (V(R))

be applicable? or is it just an intermediary?

Never! Look at the units on the right-hand side. The first term has units of velocity, the second, acceleration. The equation you are looking for is

\mathbf v_I = \mathbf v_R + \mathbf \omega \times \mathbf r

So when does this equation apply? Simple: When you want to know the velocity of some object as seen by an observer fixed in the inertial frame.
 
ah i see now. cheers.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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...
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