Help with accelerated coordinate system question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving the landing distance of a ball thrown vertically upward on Earth's surface, considering the effects of centrifugal and Coriolis forces. The key equation to solve includes the total force as a combination of gravitational, Coriolis, and centrifugal forces. Participants suggest using spherical polar coordinates for a more accurate representation, while also noting the complexity of the calculations involved. There is a focus on making reasonable approximations to simplify the problem, such as assuming constant radius and angles. The conversation highlights the challenges of visualizing three-dimensional motion and the need for careful mathematical handling to avoid errors.
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
Ok, so if a ball is thrown vertically upward with velocity v on the Earth's surface. (Air resistance being neglected). I have to show that the ball lands a distance (4wsin(beta)v^3/3g^2) to the west where w is the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation and beta is the colatitude angle.

fIhave equations for the centrifugal force where Fcf=-mw x (w x r)
for the Coriolis force where Fcor=-2mw x v

and through this should be able to solve this equation which goes something like

F=mg +Fcor +Fcf where F=mass multiplied by the acceleration of coordinate system. Help anybody?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you supposed to solve or derive the equation that you have given in the first paragraph? It seems more like a derivation.

Off the top of my head, I would set it up in spherical polar coordinates. Don't forget that the equation for force that you gave is a vector equation. Basically, you will get 3 equations (that I think will be coupled). I see if I can give you more specifics if I find some time later.
 
Thanks, I have a lot of trouble with spherical coordinates and seeing 3 dimensions in my head and mathematically. I derived something sort of close looking using the vector equations I gave. Thanks for just taking a look at this anywayz.
 
It seems like this is an excercise in choosing the reasonable level of approximation. For instance, you could go all out and solve in spherical polar coordinates, which would be a complete mess. You could take it down several notches and make some approximations like r ~ r0 and θ ~ θ0 throughout the process. I tried it this way, but I think I slipped up somewhere (I used Laplace transforms; it was still a mess, and I got a zero where I don't think there should be one). Something that just occurred to me, you could estimate the coriolis effect by applying it to the average value of the velocity (but that might just cancel/give zero). I might look at my approach again and see if I can find my error.
 
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