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.
 
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