Uniform circular motion problem

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
38 replies · 6K views
Nathanael said:
FT is the net force right? The magnitude of FT is not 559.98.

Also there are 2 angles against the vertical. The problem may want you to find the smaller of the two angles.
i guess i found it.
20150627_004414_zpssedy1fr0.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nathanael said:
FT is the net force right? The magnitude of FT is not 559.98.

Also there are 2 angles against the vertical. The problem may want you to find the smaller of the two angles.
thanks again Nathanael!
 
No problem. I was going to tell you about the arctan method after you found it your way. The arctan method was the first that came to my mind.
(But the arccos(a.b/(|a||b|)) method is also a very good one to know! It's far more general.)
 
i really need to work on recognizing what is the logical next step to take with what information i have. i spend way too much time on a single problem
 
Nathanael said:
No problem. I was going to tell you about the arctan method after you found it your way. The arctan method was the first that came to my mind.
(But the arccos(a.b/(|a||b|)) method is also a very good one to know! It's far more general.)
did you find the angle with the arccos method? what values did you use for a and b? i could only get 180degs
 
J-dizzal said:
i really need to work on recognizing what is the logical next step to take with what information i have. i spend way too much time on a single problem
It comes with practice. I hope at least that you feel you are getting better and better (even if slowly).

J-dizzal said:
did you find the angle with the arccos method? what values did you use for a and b? i could only get 180degs
I didn't use that method, but it would work. You had the dot product right [itex](62\hat i-mg\hat j)\cdot(0\hat i+\hat j)=-mg[/itex] but then you are supposed to divide by [itex]\sqrt{(mg)^2+62^2}*1[/itex] but for some reason you were dividing by mg. That's why in post #30 I said the magnitude of the net force is not mg.

I think it was just a careless mistake, just got to take things slow.
 
Nathanael said:
It comes with practice. I hope at least that you feel you are getting better and better (even if slowly).I didn't use that method, but it would work. You had the dot product right [itex](62\hat i-mg\hat j)\cdot(0\hat i+\hat j)=-mg[/itex] but then you are supposed to divide by [itex]\sqrt{(mg)^2+62^2}*1[/itex] but for some reason you were dividing by mg. That's why in post #30 I said the magnitude of the net force is not mg.

I think it was just a careless mistake, just got to take things slow.
yep i sure did miss that, thanks for point it out to me though.
 
ill be on tomorrow with some statics problems, most likely. hope youre on to help. goodnight. thanks again.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nathanael