Measuring Centripetal Acceleration Geometrically

AI Thread Summary
Centripetal acceleration can be measured geometrically by analyzing the position of an object in motion along a circular path using a Cartesian coordinate system. By tracking the object's position over time with rulers, one can calculate the acceleration vector through second derivatives of the position coordinates. This approach allows for the determination of total acceleration without directly measuring force. The discussion highlights the complexity of measuring centripetal acceleration independently, emphasizing the need for multiple measurements if the motion occurs on a plane. Overall, the conversation clarifies that while measuring centripetal acceleration without force is challenging, it can be approached through geometric methods.
scott_alexsk
Messages
335
Reaction score
0
Is there a way to measure centripetal acceleration independent of a force measurement? If I had just a ruler, and a ball was rolling along a circular path, could I 'measure' the centripetal acceleration itself, without resorting to finding the radius, period, etc. Someone once told me that this is a special case of acceleration, with rotating frames, but then what does the acceleration mean, in the rate of change of the angle of inclination of the frame?

Thanks,
-Scott
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a bit confusing.

Maybe you can illustrate what you mean by doing this with linear motion and demonstrate what you wanted to do with the regular linear acceleration, presuming that what you want to do is clear with this case.

Zz.
 
v^2 / r How can you measure something without units of measurement? Acceleration is a change in the velocity. Acceleration is there because there is a change in direction in circular motion.
 
scott_alexsk said:
Is there a way to measure centripetal acceleration independent of a force measurement? If I had just a ruler, and a ball was rolling along a circular path, could I 'measure' the centripetal acceleration itself, without resorting to finding the radius, period, etc. Someone once told me that this is a special case of acceleration, with rotating frames, but then what does the acceleration mean, in the rate of change of the angle of inclination of the frame?

Thanks,
-Scott

I assume you're interested in the Newtonian case.

For convenience, set up a Cartesian coordinate system (x,y,z).

Measure x(t), y(t), and z(t), the position of the object as a function of time.

The object's acceleration vector will then be d^2 x / dt^2, d^2 y/ dt^2, d^2 z / dt^2. (This works for any path, including a circular one).

The magnitude of this vector will be the total acceleration.

Note that you'll need at least two rulers if the ball is on a plane, i.e. you'll need to measure x and y.
 
Thank you prevect. That is a very useful (and simple) definition.

-Scott
 
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