How does a conical pendulum demonstrate the concept of centripetal force?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter paul_harris77
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the demonstration of centripetal force using a conical pendulum, specifically through an experimental setup involving a tennis ball and a mass hanger. Participants explore the forces at play, including the tension in the string and the concept of centrifugal force, while addressing common misconceptions related to these forces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes an experiment with a tennis ball and mass hanger to illustrate centripetal force, questioning the role of upward forces and the existence of centrifugal force.
  • Another participant asserts that while centrifugal force is often deemed nonexistent, a reactive force does exist between the string and the ball, suggesting a distinction in terminology.
  • Some participants discuss the perspective of the rotating ball, noting that from this viewpoint, forces appear reversed, introducing the concept of fictitious forces in non-inertial frames.
  • A participant mentions the conical pendulum as a simpler example, explaining how the angle of rotation changes with the force applied, while also noting that the angle can never reach zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and definition of centrifugal force, with some rejecting the term entirely while others acknowledge its use in specific contexts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the interpretation of forces in rotating systems.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of forces, the assumptions made about frames of reference, and the implications of using terms like "reactive centrifugal force." These aspects contribute to the complexity of the conversation without reaching a consensus.

paul_harris77
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
I am slightly confused about an experiment to demonstrate centripetal force.

Suppose a tennis ball is attached to a piece of string. On the other end of the string is attached a mass hanger and some small masses. In the middle of the string is a small piece of plastic tubing. A person holds the string on the plastic tubing and starts swinging the ball around in a horizontal circle. As the ball speeds up, the mass hanger starts rising through the tubing. I am told that this is just due to the equation F=m(v^2)/r and that the radius must increase if the speed increases and the mass (source of the centripetal force) is staying constant. But surely an upwards force must be acting on the mass hanger through the string to cause the masses to rise? If so, wouldn't this be a centrifugal force? There lies the problem because I am told there is no such thing as a centrifugal force.

Thanks

Paul
 
Physics news on Phys.org
paul_harris77 said:
no such thing as a centrifugal force.
The force exists, being one of the Newton third law pair of forces between string and tennis ball. The tension in the string exerts a centripetal force on the ball, coexistant with the ball exerting a reactive centrifugal force on the string.

The issue is with the term centrifugal force, not about the existence of a reaction force coexisting with a force that results in acceleration. Wiki includes a reference to reactive centrifugal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force
 
Imagine yourself from the point of view of the rotating ball. All the effects are reversed with an equal and opposite force which is the centripetal from the ball's view and centrifugal from the initial view
 
paul_harris77 said:
But surely an upwards force must be acting on the mass hanger through the string to cause the masses to rise?
Of course. The string tension exerts an upward force on the mass hanger (and an inward force on the ball).
If so, wouldn't this be a centrifugal force? There lies the problem because I am told there is no such thing as a centrifugal force.
No, it would not be an example of what is called centrifugal force. In standard physics usage, "centrifugal force" is a "fictitious" force that only appears when analyzing motion from a rotating frame. Note that the centrifugal force would act on the ball, not on the string or mass hanger. From the usual inertial frame of reference, you'd never have a centrifugal force.

Some people do refer to the force that the ball exerts on the string as a "reactive centrifugal force", but do so at your own risk.
 
vin300 said:
Imagine yourself from the point of view of the rotating ball. All the effects are reversed with an equal and opposite force which is the centripetal from the ball's view and centrifugal from the initial view
:confused:

In the non-inertial rotating frame in which the ball is at rest (and not accelerating), one adds a "fictitious" outward force on the ball--the centrifugal force--in order to make use of Newton's laws (which only apply without correction in inertial frames). In this non-inertial frame, the outward centrifugal force balances the inward centripetal force (the string tension).
 
I replied to "no such thing as a centrifugal force"
Centripetal force as string tension is a convention. From the point of view of the ball the tubing and masses rotate, so the centripetal force in this case the centrifugal force initially
 
Yes. I too had this doubt before.
A much simpler example is the conical pendulum- Tie a stone to a string and hang it down. Rotate it by twisting your wrist such that the plane of rotation is making an angle with the string. Alright. Let the picture do the talking.
http://web.ncf.ca/ch865/graphics/ConicalPendulum1.jpeg
By increasing the force of the wrist twist, you see that the stone gradually comes up(angle between the plane of rotation and the string reduces). A simple analysis of the free body diagram will show you why-Doc Al did explain though. You can also see that the angle can never reach zero i.e., the plane of rotation can never be perfectly horizontal. Check! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
913
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K