Speed Pertaining to Circular Motion

AI Thread Summary
In circular motion, speed is calculated using the formula v = ω * r, where v is linear velocity in m/s, ω is angular velocity in rad/s, and r is the radius in meters. The confusion arises from the units, as radians are considered a unitless quantity because they represent the ratio of arc length to radius. Therefore, when calculating speed, the radian unit effectively cancels out, allowing for consistent units of m/s. This concept clarifies why the textbook calculations appear to omit radians. Understanding that radians are unitless simplifies the relationship between linear and angular motion.
Coop
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Units for Speed Pertaining to Circular Motion

Hi,

So v=ω*r

Where v = velocity in m/s
ω = angular velocity in rad/s
r = radius in m

But I am confused...the units don't match! What happens to the rad?

m/s = (rad/s)*s

My textbook doesn't explain it, it simply does calculations like (56.5 rad/s)(0.030 m) = 1.7 m/s and the rad disappears. I have a feeling I am missing something obvious o.O. Any help?

Thanks,
Coop
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The measure of an angle θ, in radians, is defined as the ratio of a circular arc subtending that angle θ to the radius of the circle. Angles thus have units of length per length. In other words, angle is a unitless quantity. Using radians makes the constant of proportionality one when computing arc length, or when computing speed along a circular path.
 
In other words, rads is not a unit. It's just a label.
 
Cool, thanks a lot guys, I wish my book explained that :p
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top