Understanding Centripetal Force: Definition, Equations & Free Body Diagrams

AI Thread Summary
Centripetal force is not an independent force but rather the inward component of existing forces like tension or friction acting on a body. In free body diagrams, it should not be labeled as "centripetal force" and should only be represented by the actual forces present, such as tension or friction. For example, a vehicle on a circular path experiences friction as the centripetal force, while tension can also serve this role in different scenarios. It is important to avoid depicting centripetal force in diagrams where no actual centripetal force exists. In contrast, centrifugal force is recognized as a separate force in non-inertial frames and should be included in those diagrams.
Messages
19,787
Reaction score
10,739
Definition/Summary

Centripetal force is not a separate force.

It is only an alternative name for the radially inward component of tension or friction or other force or forces on a body.

In a free body diagram, centripetal force should never be mentioned by name (it should be called "tension" "friction" etc), and should not be shown at all if it there is no actual force in the centripetal direction.

Equations



Extended explanation

The friction force can be centripetal:

A vehicle driving uniformly along a circular path on flat ground experiences a friction force towards the centre of the circle: that is the only force on the vehicle with a component in that direction.

In that case, the friction force may be called the centripetal force.

A vehicle driving uniformly along a circular path on banked ground experiences a friction force down the bank.

A vehicle changing speed along any circular path experiences a friction force with both a tangential and a radial component.

In either case, there is no separate radial force, though some people like to call the radial component of friction the centripetal force.

Tension can be centripetal:

A block on a flat surface attached by string or elastic to a fixed point experiences a tension force along the string.

In that case, the tension force may be called the centripetal force.

A mass attached by string to a fixed point and rotating in a horizontal circle below it also experiences a tension force along the string, but this is obviously not centripetal.

Drawing a centripetal force on the diagram for this situation is very unhelpful, since there is no actual force there, though some people like to call the horizontal component of the tension the centripetal force.

Free body diagrams:

In a free body diagram, centripetal force should never be mentioned by name (it should be called "tension" "friction" etc), and should not be shown at all if it is only the component of a force or forces.

In a free body diagram in an inertial frame, centripetal acceleration may be shown by a different sort of arrow (doubled or squiggly), completely separate from the body it relates to.

Centrifugal force in a rotating frame:

By comparison, in a free body diagram in a rotating (non-inertial) frame, the centrifugal force is a separate force and should be shown.

* This entry is from our old Library feature. If you know who wrote it, please let us know so we can attribute a writer. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can confirm that centripetal force is not a separate force and is only an alternative name for the radially inward component of tension or friction or other force or forces on a body. It should not be mentioned by name in free body diagrams, and should not be shown at all if there is no actual force in the centripetal direction. In a free body diagram in an inertial frame, centripetal acceleration may be shown by a different sort of arrow, and centrifugal force in a rotating frame should be shown as it is a separate force.
 
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