Velocity ratio - bodies in orbit

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the ratio of tangential linear velocities of a body in orbit at perihelion and aphelion. Two methods are proposed: one using centripetal force, leading to the conclusion that velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of the distance, and the other using angular momentum, which suggests a direct inverse relationship with distance. Participants clarify that the centripetal force equation is valid only for circular orbits, and the radius used must be the radius of curvature, not the distance from the sun. The vis-viva equation is introduced as a valid approach, confirming that both methods yield the same relationship through conservation of energy. The discussion highlights the importance of recognizing the limitations of the equations used in orbital mechanics.
Anastomosis
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, I was just going over some equations for velocity with respect to bodies revolving around the sun. I wanted to figure out the ratio of tangential linear velocity (i.e. speed) of a body when it is at its perihelion to its velocity at aphelion.

In other words, I wanted to solve for \frac{v_a}{v_p} (velocity at aphelion/velocity at perihelion) in terms of (Ra and Rp, distance at aphelion and perihelion, respectively).

I figured there are two ways of doing this.
One, we can say that the centripetal force keeping the body in orbit is entirely due to the gravitational force of (sun on body).

So setting up a force equality:
\frac{mv^{2}}{R}=\frac{GMm}{R^2}

where m is the mass of the body, M the mass of the sun, G the gravitational constant, and R, the distance between the centers of mass of the sun and body.

Canceling out like terms, we now get:
v^2=\frac{GM}{R}

Indicating that the linear velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of the distance between centers of mass.
So the ratio va/vp is:
\frac{v_a}{v_p}=\sqrt{\frac{R_p}{R_a}}

Now, solving it another way, if we see that there are no external torques acting on the system, such that it is in angular equilibrium, then the angular momentum at each point in the orbit should be equal, in other words:

L_a = L_p
mv_aR_a = mv_pR_p

Rearranging this then, we see that the velocities are inversely proportional to just the distances, i.e.

\frac{v_a}{v_p}=\frac{R_p}{R_a}

So, which is right? Velocity inversely proportional to the square root or just the straight distance?
I'm assuming that they both are right, and I forgot to integrate something, or I assumed too much in setting this up. Can anyone shed light on this?
Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The R in mv^2/R is NOT the distance from the sun.
It is the radius of curvature of the orbit.
You result only holds for a circular orbit.
 
Aha, then the equation F=\frac{mv^2}{R} only holds true for circular motion then, and thus R can never be varied, correct?

Or, R can be varied, but it must be computed as the radius of curvature of motion rather than the distance of the object from the center.
 
Anastomosis said:
So setting up a force equality:
\frac{mv^{2}}{R}=\frac{GMm}{R^2}
That isn't valid. You are implicitly assuming a circular orbit here.

Now, solving it another way ...

\frac{v_a}{v_p}=\frac{R_p}{R_a}

You will get the same result if you look at the problem from the perspective of conservation of energy. Conservation of energy dictates that

v^2 = GM\left(\frac 2 r - \frac 1 a\right)

This is the vis-viva equation. The semi-major axis is related to the apofocus and perifocus via 2a = r_a + r_p. With this, the same relationship as you found with conservation of angular momentum arises from the vis-viva equation.
 
Thanks a lot, that was a big help. I hadn't caught that the centripetal force equation was only for circular orbits.
 
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