B Gravitational acceleration in circular motion

AI Thread Summary
In uniform circular motion, the acceleration of 9.8 m/s², which represents gravitational acceleration, does not disappear but is instead balanced by centripetal acceleration. The centripetal acceleration, calculated as a = v²/r, is responsible for changing the direction of the velocity vector without altering its magnitude. The discussion clarifies that acceleration affects velocity, not speed, which remains constant in uniform circular motion. The concept of a conical pendulum is also mentioned as a related topic that involves both gravitational and centripetal forces. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for grasping the principles of motion in circular paths.
physicsmagician
Messages
1
Reaction score
1
Hi guys, I have a question that is simple but I do not know how to answer that. It is the following, where does the acceleration of 9,8 meters per second squared go when We're dealing with uniform circular motion? I know that We have the centripetal acceleration that is a vector change, but the value of 9,8 I said, where did it go?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a=\frac{v^2}{r}
You should set values of speed v and radius r to get a=9.8 m/sec^2.

If you are talking on sum of gravity force or acceleration and centrifugal force or acceleration, Conical pendulum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conical_pendulum might be of your interest.

 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes physicsmagician
What do you mean "where does it go"? Are you asking why the speed doesn't change? If so, the point is that acceleration doesn't change speed, it changes velocity. In the particular case of circular motion it happens not to change the magnitude of the vector, that's all.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes physicsmagician and vanhees71
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