Verify Coriolis Acceleration Derivation on Merry Go Round

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on verifying the derivation of Coriolis acceleration on a merry-go-round from a rotating reference frame. The original equation presented has formatting issues and lacks proper units for acceleration, leading to confusion. Corrections highlighted include the need for a time variable in the centrifugal acceleration term and the proper placement of a coefficient in the Coriolis term. Participants suggest that the second unit vector should be adjusted and recommend solving for trajectory rather than just acceleration. The user plans to post the corrected equation after further study.
somebodyelse5
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
I have a derivation for the coriolis acceleration on a "merry go round" that my instructor gave in class, i was wondering if someone could tell me if this is correct or offer the correct final equation.
Additional information: this is from the rotating point of view on the merry go round.

[\omega V_{}ocos(\theta-\omegat)+\omega^2V_{}otsin(\theta-\omegat)]j-2[\omegaV_{}osin(\theta-\omegat)-\omega^2V_{}ocos(\theta-\omegat)]j

Note: this is not HW, just something i need to study for my exam and I am concerned it is incorrect.
V_{}o is Initial velocity

Please forgive the poor formatting of that equation, i did my best to make it clear. For some reason, some of the omegas are off set up, and shouldn't be, could figure out why.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is what you wrote I think,

<br /> [\omega v_0\cos(\theta-\omega t)+\omega^2v_0t\sin(\theta-\omega t)]\mathbf{j}-2[\omega v_0\sin(\theta-\omega t)-\omega^2 v_0\cos(\theta-\omega t)]\mathbf{j}<br />

You can just use the tex environment from now on instead of switching between them. Well the way it's written it can't be right since the last term (the one with cosine) doesn't have the units of acceleration. I imagine there should be a t multiplied at the end there.

Did you mis-transcribe it?
 
The coriolis force produces acceleration:

\bold{a_c}=-2(\bold{\omega} \times \bold{v})

So, without knowing how exactly you defined your variables, and the exact set up of your problem, I'm not entirely sure I can help you all that much.
 
appreciate the responses guys. In my frantic searches and calls to fellow students it turns out i simply "forgot" a 2 in front of the first term, and mixed up the unit vector for the second term.

If you guys are at all interested, I can post the correct equation tomorrow? got to keep studying now!
 
You are missing a time variable in the second centrifugal acceleration term. You need a v*t to equal radius for someone walking radially. The 2 should only be part of the Coriolis acceleration and not the centrifugal acceleration. Your second unit vector j should be an i. Other than that you're fine. Also I'm assuming that a positive v means the person is walking radially outward, and a negative v means they are walking radially inward.

Have you tried solving for the trajectory and not just the acceleration?
 
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