Uniform circular motion (centripetal acceleration & force)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the described motion does not constitute uniform circular motion due to the discontinuous changes in direction of force and acceleration. Although the magnitude of force and acceleration remains constant, the path taken consists of four parabolic segments rather than a circular trajectory. For true uniform circular motion, the object must move in a circular path at a constant speed with acceleration directed towards the center. The example provided fails to meet these criteria, as the forces do not cycle smoothly. Thus, the motion cannot be classified as uniform circular motion.
V0ODO0CH1LD
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Imagine a body moving to the right with velocity v, I then apply a force that accelerates the body leftwards by v and downwards by v.
After one second, the body has stopped moving to the right and is only moving downwards with velocity v.
Then, while I keep accelerating the body to the left until it reaches a velocity v leftwards, I also accelerate the body upwards until it has stopped moving downwards.
By that point, I accelerate the body to the right by v and up by v, after one second it has stopped its movement to the left and is now only moving up.
Finally, I apply a acceleration of v downwards until it stops moving up and rightwards until it reaches a velocity of v to the right.
The object is now exactly in the same point in space it started. And I repeat the same process again and again.

My question is: providing I start the next step at the exact moment I finish the previous one, will the object experience uniform circular motion?
And in that case, clearly those accelerations are less then the centripetal acceleration the body would experience going in the exact same circular fashion. So why is that not a valid centripetal acceleration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What you've described is not uniform circular motion. The magnitude of the force and acceleration are constant as in uniform circular motion, but their direction changes discontinuously, unlike uniform circular motion.

I haven't worked out the path in detail, but I think it would consist of four parabolic segments, one for each stage of constant force direction; not a circle.
 
jtbell said:
What you've described is not uniform circular motion. The magnitude of the force and acceleration are constant as in uniform circular motion, but their direction changes discontinuously, unlike uniform circular motion.

I haven't worked out the path in detail, but I think it would consist of four parabolic segments, one for each stage of constant force direction; not a circle.

So even if it did go around in the same circular path it wouldn't be considered uniform circular motion because the direction of the force and acceleration doesn't cycle neatly?
 
V0ODO0CH1LD said:
So even if it did go around in the same circular path it wouldn't be considered uniform circular motion because the direction of the force and acceleration doesn't cycle neatly?

Your example does not go in a circular path. As jtbell says, the path will consist of four parabolic segments.

If an object does go in a circular path at a constant speed, then it is by definition in uniform circular motion. In this case, the acceleration of the object will always be towards the centre of the circle, unlike in your example.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top