Is the Graph of Period vs. Radius in Circular Motion a Straight Line or a Curve?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the period (T) and radius (R) in uniform circular motion, specifically whether the graph of T vs. R should be a straight line or a curve. The user has plotted log-Period vs. log-Radius, which resulted in a straight line, suggesting a potential curve for the T vs. R graph. However, the user’s data points appear to favor a straight line, leading to confusion about the expected relationship. The experiment involves a rubber stopper on a string, and the user notes that if the centripetal force remains constant, it could imply a direct relationship between T and R. Ultimately, the user is seeking clarity on the theoretical expectations for the graph based on their experimental findings.
JohnSimpson
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
Hi, I've recently done a lab where we are investigating circular motion. I've plotted a graph of Period vs. Radius, but I'm unable to tell if a straight line or some sort of curve would be better suited to the graph.

I've also plotted log-Period vs. log-Radius and it was a straight line which makes me think that the graph of T vs. R should be a curve, but when I look at my (possibly very flawed) data points a straight line seems better suited.

In short, my question is, is the graph of Period vs. Radius for uniform circular motion a straight line or a curve?

Edit: Forgot to mention this is the ol' rubber stopper on the end of a string and your swinging the whole thing around by holding onto a glass tube, with the weight being on the other end of the string)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
HINT: Given that the centripetal force is the same in all cases, what is the relationship between T and R?
 
I wish I knew.
 
What would you conclude if \omega^2 r is a constant?
 
We havn't been told any equations so I have no idea what that means
 
I'm fairly sure that if the experiment went according to theory, the graph would be a straight line.

I'm saying this because we did a lab like this, and all of our graphs were supposed to be straight lines to show a direct relationship.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top