What is the (higher order) time derivative of centripetal acceleration?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the time derivative of centripetal acceleration, initially positing that it could be expressed as rω³. However, this assumption is challenged by the realization that the correct time derivative involves additional terms, specifically r(dot(ω)² + 2rω(dot(ω))). Dimensional analysis alone does not validate the initial claim, emphasizing the importance of proper differentiation. The conversation highlights the complexities of higher-order time derivatives in rotational motion. Overall, the need for careful mathematical treatment in deriving these relationships is underscored.
TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13
Just using basic dimensional analysis, it appears the time derivative of centripetal acceleration is ## \vec{r} \omega^3 ##, but this intuitive guess would also extend to higher order time derivatives, no? Implying:

## \frac {d^n \vec{r}}{dt^n} = \vec{r} \omega^n ##

It seems to follow from the general result shown in Thorton/Marion pg 390 (attached) when considering rotating bodies in a fixed frame. I assume ## \vec{Q} ## is any vector, even ones that are the result of a higher order time derivative of an initial vector. The concept of finite infinite-time derivative just seems like an odd concept to me when considering real objects, but I guess the geometry of the situation allows it. But to confirm, is anything posted here incorrect?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-01-16 at 6.20.58 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-01-16 at 6.20.58 PM.png
    14.5 KB · Views: 481
Physics news on Phys.org
TheCanadian said:
Just using basic dimensional analysis, it appears the time derivative of centripetal acceleration is r⃗ ω3r→ω3 \vec{r} \omega^3 , but this intuitive guess would also extend to higher order time derivatives, no? Implying:
Dimensional analysis allows that as a possibility, but it does not make it true. If we start with the scalar form ##r\omega^2## we see the time derivative is ##r\dot\omega^2+2r\omega\dot{\omega}##.
 
haruspex said:
Dimensional analysis allows that as a possibility, but it does not make it true. If we start with the scalar form ##r\omega^2## we see the time derivative is ##r\dot\omega^2+2r\omega\dot{\omega}##.

Thank you for pointing out that I forgot to do a basic differentiation. It is much appreciated.
 
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?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top