Foucault pendulum string medium

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on how the string of a Foucault pendulum does not twist despite being anchored to the Earth's rotating base. It explains that the pendulum bob co-rotates with the Earth, preventing any twisting of the string, whether at the poles or at different latitudes. The motion of the pendulum, whether swinging or stationary, does not affect this co-rotation, ensuring the string remains untwisted. The conversation also references a real-life experiment conducted at the South Pole, illustrating the practical application of these principles. Understanding this mechanism clarifies why the Foucault pendulum effectively demonstrates Earth's rotation.
adam.kumayl
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
This question is literally driving me crazy. How does the String or rope or whatever is used in a Foucault pendulum not twist with the rotation of the Earth (because the rope is attached to bases that are attached to the ground).

Actually if the bases are attached to the ground, that should be the ENTIRE thing is rotating so how are we able to see the effect?

please if you're going to explain it dumb it down to the most reduced form of an explanation visually because this problem is on my nerves. Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
adam.kumayl said:
This question is literally driving me crazy. How does the String or rope or whatever is used in a Foucault pendulum not twist with the rotation of the Earth (because the rope is attached to bases that are attached to the ground).
What should prevent it from untwisting? With rigid Foucault pendulums you obviously need a bearing in the attachment, that gives the vertical axis free.
 
  • Like
Likes FPdmsssdeun
I'm sorry I'm not quite clear on the things you described. If it twists it should mess up the motion of the swing, we know that it DOESNt twist..Why doesn't the rope twist?
 
adam.kumayl said:
This question is literally driving me crazy. How does the String or rope or whatever is used in a Foucault pendulum not twist with the rotation of the Earth
To think about that case start with a simplified setup, then add features back to it.

In this case start with a pendulum at one of the Earth's poles, say, the South pole. Also consider first a non-swinging pendulum.

So you have that pendulum bob, suspended above the south pole. That pendulum bob is co-rotating with the Earth. The wire of the non-swinging pendulum will not twist/untwist because the bob is rotating around its own axis, co-rotating with the Earth.

Next step: such a pendulum on any latitude. Let's call that a 'latitudinal pendulum'. Such a pendulum is circumnavigating the Earth. The thing is: just as the polar pendulum bob is rotating on it's own axis, the latitudinal pendulum is rotating on it's own axis. So just as the polar pendulum bob will not twist the wire the latitudinal pendulum will not twist the wire.

Adding swing makes no difference either, not to the polar pendulum and not to the latitudinal pendulum.
(As many have pointed out in earlier threads: on a scientific station located right at the south pole, in the winter of 2001, three guys have actually rigged a foucault setup, in a high staircase. Allan Baker recounts it was tough going; that staircase was unheated.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes FPdmsssdeun
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