Foucault pendulum - the physics and maths involved

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the equations related to Foucault's pendulum, particularly focusing on the transition from equation (2) to equation (3) in a referenced paper. The user expresses confusion about why the last term in equation (3) lacks a minus sign, despite the previous equations indicating it should. Another participant suggests that the right-hand side of equation (2) might be missing a minus sign, which could clarify the discrepancy. The conversation highlights the complexities of deriving equations in physics and the importance of precise notation. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for careful analysis in mathematical physics.
Thomas2054
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
I have been looking at this paper (http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/pendulumdetails.html) on the details of Foucault's pendulum. I am interested in understanding the details, but am having some trouble. My purpose is to study this as an example of how the analysis is done. I'd like to ask some questions and then plod along on my own, until the next question.

Let me start with this question. In the paragraph above equation (2) Wolfe has the equation: r" = r"p − r"o. I see where he then derives equation (2). However, it is equation (3) with which I am having a problem.

r" = r"p − r"o, which can be expanded to
mr" = mr"p − mr"o. Equation (1) is substituted for mr"p and equation (2), multiplied by m, is substituted for mr"o.

Why in equation (3) does the last term not have a minus sign?

Thanks.

Thomas
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thomas2054 said:
Why in equation (3) does the last term not have a minus sign?
I haven't looked it over too closely, but I suspect that the RHS of (2) is missing a minus sign.
 
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