Is Acceleration Measured on the Proof Mass or the Surface?

AI Thread Summary
An accelerometer primarily measures the acceleration of its proof mass, which is influenced by the surface it is attached to. The force acting on the proof mass can be calculated using the formula F = ma, where m is the mass and a is the acceleration. While the accelerometer typically registers acceleration that corresponds to the surface, this is not always the case if the instrument is sliding. The discussion highlights that in certain scenarios, the acceleration of the proof mass may differ from that of the surface. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurate measurements in various applications.
chandran
Messages
137
Reaction score
1
correct me if wrong
an accelerometer consists of a mass(proof mass). say the proof mass is
x kg. The accelerometer sensed the acceleration of the proof mass.

suppose the accelerometer reading is y can i say the force acting on the proof mass is x.y?

Some theory says that the accelerometer measures the acceleration of the surface on which it is attached.

Which is true. The accelerometer measure the acceleration of the proof mass or

The accelerometer measure the acceleration of the surface on which the instrument is attached.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only ones that I know of monitor the proof mass, whose relative acceleration is opposed to that of the surface (ie: it's inertia makes it lag behind the accelerometer housing). It doesn't have to be any kg-class weight, either. There are micro-machined units where the proof mass is a cantelever beam etched on a silicon chip. I think that in those ones the electrical resistance of the beam changes as it bends.
I don't know the answer to your x-y question.
 
chandran said:
correct me if wrong
an accelerometer consists of a mass(proof mass). say the proof mass is
x kg. The accelerometer sensed the acceleration of the proof mass.

suppose the accelerometer reading is y can i say the force acting on the proof mass is x.y?

Some theory says that the accelerometer measures the acceleration of the surface on which it is attached.

Which is true. The accelerometer measure the acceleration of the proof mass or

The accelerometer measure the acceleration of the surface on which the instrument is attached.
For clarity, let us say a is acceleration (instead of your y), and m is the proof mass (instead of x).
Let:
F = tensional force on spring
k = spring constant
x = displacement of proof mass

Spring equation:

(1)\quad F = -kx

Acceleration:

(2)\quad F = ma\quad \mbox{OR} \quad a=\frac{F}{m}

(2) shows you are correct with regards to force being the product of acceleration and mass.
(1) is saying acceleration is measured by this instrument on the proof mass. Under normal circumstances, this will be the same as the surface upon which the instrument rests, but consider the situation where the instrument slides on that surface. It is still registering acceleration on the proof mass, but no longer is that the same as the surface upon which it rests.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top