Solving for r: 3.24 Meters Too Far?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wzss
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the calculation of radius (r) in a physics problem involving static friction and centripetal force. The user derived the equation r = (μ_s * mg) * (T^2 / 4π^2) and calculated r to be 3.24 meters using μ_s = 1.2, g = 9.8 m/s², and T = 3.3 s. However, the calculated value is deemed incorrect due to unit inconsistencies, indicating a need to reassess the algebra and the placement of terms in the equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of static friction (μ_s)
  • Knowledge of centripetal force equations
  • Familiarity with unit analysis in physics
  • Basic algebra skills for equation manipulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of centripetal force equations
  • Learn about unit consistency in physics calculations
  • Explore the relationship between frequency and radius in circular motion
  • Practice solving problems involving static friction and centripetal force
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, educators teaching mechanics, and anyone interested in understanding the principles of static friction and centripetal motion calculations.

Wzss
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
Homework Statement
A bug crawls outward from the center of a CD spinning at 200 revolutions per minute. coefficient of static friction between bug's sticky feet and disc surface is 1.2. How far does the bug get from the center before slipping?
Relevant Equations
centripetal acceleration = (v^2 / r) = (4pi^2r)/ t^2
F_net= ma (newton's second law)
static friction = "mu" F_n (normal force)
200rpm/60 = 3.33 revolutions per second
I set (μ_s) *mg equal to (m*4pi^2r)/T^2
Then I solved for r
However, when I solve for r, I get 3.24 meters which seems much too far for a bug to travel. Should I have divided by something somewhere instead of multiplied?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wzss said:
I set (μ_s) *mg equal to (m*4pi^2r)/T^2
Then I solved for r
However, when I solve for r, I get 3.24 meters which seems much too far for a bug to travel. Should I have divided by something somewhere instead of multiplied?
Yes, that's too big.
Please post the details of the calculation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR and Wzss
haruspex said:
Yes, that's too big.
Please post the details of the calculation.
Thank you for the response!
Here is what I've been getting
r = (μ_s (mg)) * (t^2/ 4pi^2) (got this equation from setting equal static friction and centripetal force, then eliminating mass and solving equation for r)
r = (1.2*9.8*(3.3)^2) / 4pi^2
r = 3.24 meters
I know this makes no sense, but I'm not sure how else to arrange the equation
 
Wzss said:
Thank you for the response!
Here is what I've been getting
r = (μ_s (mg)) * (t^2/ 4pi^2) (got this equation from setting equal static friction and centripetal force, then eliminating mass and solving equation for r)
r = (1.2*9.8*(3.3)^2) / 4pi^2
r = 3.24 meters
I know this makes no sense, but I'm not sure how else to arrange the equation
You should always verify the units of your proposed solution:$$r=(1.2) (9.8 m/s^2)(3.3/s)^2/(4\pi^2)=3.24 m/s^4$$which aren't the right units for a radius. Check your algebra!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR and Wzss
renormalize said:
You should always verify the units of your proposed solution:$$r=(1.2) (9.8 m/s)(3.3/s)^2/(4\pi^2)=3.24 ms$$which aren't the right units for a radius. Check your algebra!
I'm confused. How did you get 3.24 ms?
When I do it, the m/s^2 from the 9.8 and the s^2 after squaring T cancel out, leaving meters. Since 9.8 is acceleration, shouldn't it be m/s^2?
 
Wzss said:
I'm confused. How did you get 3.24 ms?
When I do it, the m/s^2 from the 9.8 and the s^2 after squaring T cancel out, leaving meters
I updated my post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wzss
renormalize said:
I updated my post.
Oh I see, thank you
but then, is my answer completely wrong? how do I get an answer that makes sense for radius?
 
Wzss said:
Oh I see, thank you
but then, is my answer completely wrong? how do I get an answer that makes sense for radius?
As I said, check the algebra you used to find the radius. In your formula, should the square of the frequency ##3.3/s## be in the numerator or the denominator?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR and Wzss
renormalize said:
As I said, check the algebra you used to find the radius. In your formula, should the square of the frequency ##3.3/s## be in the numerator or the denominator?
ah I see now, thank you so much!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
650
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K