How Does the Coriolis Effect Influence Falling Objects at the Equator?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Coriolis effect and its influence on the trajectory of falling objects at the Equator. The original poster is attempting to understand how the Coriolis force affects the horizontal deflection of a mass dropped from a height, specifically considering the dynamics involved in a rotating Earth frame.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between the Coriolis effect and the motion of falling objects, questioning whether the analysis changes based on the object's location on Earth. There are discussions about the initial conditions of the mass, the forces acting on it, and the implications of the Earth's rotation on its trajectory.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and questioning assumptions. Some participants suggest simplifying the problem by treating it as a trajectory in a uniform gravitational field, while others are examining the complexities introduced by the Coriolis effect and the changing frame of reference. There is no explicit consensus on the correct approach yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating through various assumptions about the forces acting on the mass, the effects of the Earth's rotation, and the implications of using different frames of reference. The original poster expresses a desire to solve the problem independently while seeking guidance on specific aspects of the analysis.

  • #31
TSny said:
Looks good except for a missing factor of R in D=(θ−{θEarth=ωt})D=(θ−{θEarth=ωt})D = \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right). (Note that your final answer for D does not have the dimensions of distance).
Oh, yes.
##\\ \text { Hence , the deflection D} ~ = R \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right) \\ = R\omega \frac g{3\left ( h+R\right) } t^3 = R\omega \frac{2 h }{3\left ( h+R\right) } \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}

D = \frac{2 }{3 } h \omega \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}##
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Pushoam said:
##\
\\ \text { Hence , the deflection D} ~ = \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right)
##
You wanted the solution in the Earth's frame of reference. With respect to the rotating Earth, thetaEarth =0. The Earth does not rotate with respect to itself.
 
  • #33
ehild said:
You wanted the solution in the Earth's frame of reference. With respect to the rotating Earth, thetaEarth =0. The Earth does not rotate with respect to itself.
No, it is wrt an inertial frame. Please look at post #{4,22,25,28,29,30,31}
 
  • #34
ehild said:
You wanted the solution in the Earth's frame of reference. With respect to the rotating Earth, thetaEarth =0. The Earth does not rotate with respect to itself.
Pushoam wanted to work the problem two ways: one way using an inertial frame and one way using the Earth frame. The various posts for the two methods got interlaced. Sorry for the confusion.
 
  • #35
Pushoam said:
Oh, yes.
##\\ \text { Hence , the deflection D} ~ = R \left(\theta - \{\theta_{Earth} = \omega t\} \right) \\ = R\omega \frac g{3\left ( h+R\right) } t^3 = R\omega \frac{2 h }{3\left ( h+R\right) } \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}

D = \frac{2 }{3 } h \omega \sqrt {\frac {2h}g}##
That's it.
 
  • #36
Pushoam said:
No, it is wrt an inertial frame. Please look at post #{4,22,25,28,29,30,31}
See your post #20.
Now I am trying to solve it wrt the Earth's frame.
. You have the solution in the inertial frame of reference in Post #16. How would you solve in the Earth's frame of reference, using the pseudo forces?
 
  • #37
ehild said:
See your post #20. . You have the solution in the inertial frame of reference in Post #16. How would you solve in the Earth's frame of reference, using the pseudo forces?
Pushoam's solution in #16 is for the inertial frame using Cartesian coordinates. At the end of that post, she asks if using Cartesian coordinates simplified the problem compared to using cylindrical coordinates (as first attempted in post #4). So, posts {4,22,25,28,29,30,31} develop the solution in the inertial frame using cylindrical coordinates.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pushoam
  • #38
Continuing from the post #{20 ,21,23,24}
Pushoam said:
Now I am trying to solve it wrt the Earth's frame.

The sub-script n implies that the corresponding quantity is measured wrt the Earth's frame.

Now, Considering cylindrical co. system with its origin coinciding with the center of the Earth,

in which I started solving the problem wrt. the Earth's frame,
##\vec F_n = \vec F_{ph} + \vec F_{pseudo} = m\vec g + m \omega ^2 r~\hat r - 2m \vec \omega \times\vec v_n

\\\vec a_n = \{g- \omega ^2 r\} \left (- \hat r \right ) - 2 \vec \omega \times\vec v_n
\\ \text {ignoring }~\omega^2 r,
\\ \vec a_n = g \left (- \hat r \right ) - 2 \vec \omega \times\vec v_n
\\ \text{Now , how to relate } \vec a_n~ and ~\vec v_n \text{ with their unit vectors? }##

##\\ \text {Initially, the mass has no angular velocity.}

\\ \text{ I assume that the mass gets angular velocity as time of motion increases.
Then,}
\\ \vec v_n = \dot r \hat r + r \dot \Theta \hat \Theta
\\ \text{ I am using }\Theta \text { for the angular displacement wrt the Earth's frame }
\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \left( - \hat r \right) + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta

\\ \text {
Is this correct so far?}

##
 
  • #39
Pushoam said:
##\\ \text {ignoring }~\omega^2 r,
\\ \vec a_n = g \left (- \hat r \right ) - 2 \vec \omega \times\vec v_n##
##\\ \vec v_n = \dot r \hat r + r \dot \Theta \hat \Theta

\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \left( - \hat r \right) + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta

\\ \text {
Is this correct so far?}

##
Yes. ehild has outlined the solution in #15 using Cartesian coordinates in the Earth frame.
 
  • #40
Pushoam said:
##\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \left( - \hat r \right) + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta

\\ \text {
Is this correct so far? }##

There is a sign mistake there ## - \hat r##. The correct one is
##\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \hat r + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta ##

## \{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \hat r + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta = g\left(-\hat r\right ) - 2\omega\dot r \hat \Theta + 2\omega r \dot \Theta \hat r
##

##\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} = -g + 2\omega r \dot \Theta ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \text{ eqn 1}
\\ \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}= - 2\omega\dot r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \text{ eqn 2}

\\ \text { considering eqn. 1,}##
##\\
\\ \text{ ignoring } r {\dot \Theta}^2 ~and~ 2\omega r \dot \Theta ,##
##\\ \text { Here, I understand that since ω is very small,we can ignore } 2\omega r \dot \Theta \text{ but what does allow us to ignore } r {\dot \Theta}^2 ##
## \\
\\ \ddot r =-g ~gives ~r = C - ½ gt^2, \text{where C is an appropriate constant }##
##\\
\\ \text { considering eqn. 2,}
\\
\\ \text{ ignoring } - 2\omega\dot r , ~ we ~have,
\\
2\dot r \dot \Theta =- r \ddot \Theta
\\ \frac {gt} { C-½ gt^2 } dt = \frac {d \dot \Theta}{\dot \Theta}

\\ \text{ Is this correct so far?}
##
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Pushoam said:
There is a sign mistake there ## - \hat r##. The correct one is
##\\ \vec a_n =\{ \ddot r - r {\dot \Theta}^2 \} \hat r + \{2\dot r \dot \Theta + r \ddot \Theta\}\hat \Theta ##
Yes. Good.
 

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
482
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K