Motion of object under central force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the effects of a sudden central force on an object moving at constant velocity. It outlines how the trajectory of the object, referred to as "A," changes based on its initial velocity when the force appears. If the velocity is zero, the object oscillates; if it equals the square root of the product of acceleration and distance, it moves in a circular path; if less, it follows an elliptical path; and if greater, the trajectory becomes non-closed and curved. The reasoning is generally accepted, though there are doubts about the conditions for non-closed paths. Clarification is sought regarding the force's magnitude and its relationship to the resulting trajectories.
myron
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody

I have been trying to develop an intuitive general understanding of how the trajectory of an object , that is moving at constant velocity, is changed by the sudden appearance of a central force but I am not sure my reasoning is correct.

(1) Consider an object "A" not subject to any force and, therefore, moving at constant velocity "V".

(2) Now, suppose that, "by magic", a central force appears at a distance R from "A" constantly pointing to a point "O" in space.

As far as I understand the path that A will take depends from its velocity "V" at the time the central force appeared:

(a) If V=0, then A will start to oscillate around O

(b) if V= SQR(a x R) (where: SQR = square root, "a" = the acceleration, constant in magnitude, to which A is subject) then A will start to move along a circular path

(c) if V < SQR(a x R), then A will start moving along an elliptical path (the smaller V the more "sqeezed" the ellipse -- the case V=0 could be considered as the degenarate case of this)

(d) if V > SQR(a x R), then the trajectory of A will be curved by the central force but the path will not be (necessarily ?) a "closed" one like a circle or an ellipse

Is the reasoning above correct? Points (a), (b), (c) make sense to me, so I believe they are correct, but I do have strong doubts about point d ...

Thanks a lot for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You haven't specified how the magnitude of the force varies, e.g. a function of R.
For an elliptical path to result, you need a force like gravity, G/R^2. In that case it will be elliptical provided V < escape velocity, sqrt(2aR).
 
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...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top