Rev/sec necessary to reach 20-g

  • Thread starter Thread starter hyde2042
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the necessary revolutions per second (rev/sec) to achieve 20-g acceleration using the formula for centripetal acceleration. The initial calculations were based on a radius of 29 feet, which was later corrected to meters, resulting in a different time period. After converting the radius to 8.84 meters, the calculated time period was found to be 1.3 seconds. Participants highlighted the need to convert this time period into rev/sec, noting that the unit for rev/sec is Hertz (Hz). The conversation emphasizes the importance of unit consistency in physics calculations.
hyde2042
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



http://imgur.com/Frn6v

Homework Equations



Ac=((2pi*r/T)^2)/r

Where T is the time period

The Attempt at a Solution



Since a g is 9.8m/s^2

20(9.8)=(4*pi^2*29)/T^2

1144.87/(20(9.8))=5.841

And solved for T getting...

sqrt(5.841)=2.417

The book's answer at the back reads 0.749 revs/sec.

Did I miss something or is there something else I'm supposed to do with the answer? Thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hyde2042 said:

Homework Statement



http://imgur.com/Frn6v


Homework Equations



Ac=((2pi*r/T)^2)/r

Where T is the time period

The Attempt at a Solution



Since a g is 9.8m/s^2

20(9.8)=(4*pi^2*29)/T^2

1144.87/(20(9.8))=5.841

sqrt(5.841)=2.417

THe book's answer at the back reads 0.749 revs/sec.

Did I miss something or is there something else I'm supposed to do with the answer? Thank you for your time.
and solved for T... ending up with

NASA scientists lost Mars probe which crashed into the planet heading for the calculated orbit height. In Their calculation they forgot that our SI units have metres for length, and set the orbital radius at xxx feet, when it should have been xxx metres.


You have used a radius of 29 in your calculation. The radius is 29 feet , NOT 29 metres.

Either express the 29 feet in metres or express g as 32.2 - the feet equivalent of our 9.8 ms-2
 
Thanks for the laugh. It did seem weird reading the word "feet" in my Physics book, but didn't think too much of it.

However, after converting 29 feet to 8.84 meters, and substituting that into the equation I'm getting, after the sqrt, 1.3 for the answer.

Is there something else I may be overlooking?
 
hyde2042 said:
Thanks for the laugh. It did seem weird reading the word "feet" in my Physics book, but didn't think too much of it.

However, after converting 29 feet to 8.84 meters, and substituting that into the equation I'm getting, after the sqrt, 1.3 for the answer.

Is there something else I may be overlooking?

What does you answer of 1.3 mean. An approximate check [like assuming pi = 3 etc] gives an answer very much like that so I am pretty sure it is correct.
Perhaps you have forgotten what quantity you have calculated and what quantity you were asked for.
 
PeterO said:
What does you answer of 1.3 mean. An approximate check [like assuming pi = 3 etc] gives an answer very much like that so I am pretty sure it is correct.
Perhaps you have forgotten what quantity you have calculated.

I'm to be calculating how many revolutions per second are required for a person to feel 20-g of acceleration. I was actually going over the quantities used to see what I was left over with.

Which was 1.3 seconds. But they want the answer in Revolutions per second. I think this is where I'm going wrong as I don't know what to do to make it into rev/sec.
 
hyde2042 said:
I'm to be calculating how many revolutions per second are required for a person to feel 20-g of acceleration. I was actually going over the quantities used to see what I was left over with.

Which was 1.3 seconds. But they want the answer in Revolutions per second. I think this is where I'm going wrong as I don't know what to do to make it into rev/sec.

The unit for revolutions per second is Hz or s-1

so how to you change s to s-1?

if T = 5 seconds, you get 12 per minute or 0.02 Hz
if T = 0.1 you will get 10 per second or 10 Hz

Soooo ...
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top