Understanding the Relationship between Force and Radius in Circular Motion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between force (Fc) and radius (r) in circular motion, highlighting two formulas: Fc = mv^2/r and Fc = 4π^2r/T^2. The initial confusion arises from the perception that Fc is inversely proportional to r in the first formula, while it appears directly proportional in the second. Clarification is provided that if angular velocity is constant, velocity (v) is directly proportional to radius (r), which reconciles the two formulas. Additionally, a missing mass (m) in the second formula is noted. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of understanding the relationship better.
Epsillon
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Alright so in one formula Fc= mv^2/r and another Fc= 4pi^2r/T^2


Although the two formlas are the same Mathematicly but isn't Fc porportional to the inverse of the r as it is shown in the first one. So why is r directly porportional to Fc in the second one?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Epsillon said:
Alright so in one formula Fc= mv^2/r and another Fc= 4pi^2r/T^2Although the two formlas are the same Mathematicly but isn't Fc porportional to the inverse of the r as it is shown in the first one. So why is r directly porportional to Fc in the second one?

because if the angular velocity (2pi/T) is constant then v is directly proportional to r. Also, you are missing an m in your 2nd formula.
 
No but isn't it supposed to be inversly proportional?
 
Epsillon said:
No but isn't it supposed to be inversly proportional?

did you read what i wrote?
 
Yes I understand this now thanks for the help :)
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Confused in diffferent forces involved in circular motion
Replies
7
Views
7K
Why Does Friction Provide Centripetal Acceleration in Circular Motion?
Replies
37
Views
4K
I The centripetal acceleration of the planets in our solar system
Replies
19
Views
3K
Tension in the thread: Centripetal Force in the Vertical plane
Replies
18
Views
8K
Centripetal Force vs Radius: Exploring Uniform Acceleration Lab Results
Replies
12
Views
6K
Motion of particle changing forces
Replies
3
Views
1K
What happens when a car turns?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Can a Stone Remain in Circular Motion if Tension Equals Zero Before Velocity?
Replies
12
Views
3K
[Grade 12 Physics] Circular/gravitational motion
Replies
21
Views
3K
B Confusion while trying to build intuition of centripetal force
Replies
15
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top