The Student Room Group

Stuck on concept of a particle moving on horizontal circle (m3) :help:

Hello, I am struggling to imagine what is going on here. My questions are:
1. What does it mean that the particle is on the point of slipping? If the particle slips, in which direction does it move?
2. What force is moving the disc itself? Would the disk stop moving if the particle is not present there? If not, what does the sentence mean: "Here, the centripetal force is provided by the frictional force F N between the particle and the disc."
3. If it was a smooth horizontal disc rather than rough horizontal disc, what would happen?
Please help me understand the concept, it's so mind boggling:help:

Reply 1
1)On the point of slipping, its currently in equilibrium with respect to its radial distance from the centre of the disk.
2)I dont think its important what force is moving the disk. It does not however rotate due to the presence of the particle.

"Here, the centripetal force is provided by the frictional force F N between the particle and the disc."
This means the centripetal force on the particle is provided by the frictional force between the particle and the disk. F(centripetal)=mv2r=F(friction)=μR F_(centripetal) = \frac{mv^2}{r} = F_(friction) = \mu R

3)It is the fact that the disk is not smooth that is causing the particle to move in a circle. If the disk were smooth there would be no centripetal force acting on the particle. If there were no other forces acting the particle would remain stationary.
Reply 2
CubeDude
1)On the point of slipping, its currently in equilibrium with respect to its radial distance from the centre of the disk.
2)I dont think its important what force is moving the disk. It does not however rotate due to the presence of the particle.

"Here, the centripetal force is provided by the frictional force F N between the particle and the disc."
This means the centripetal force on the particle is provided by the frictional force between the particle and the disk. F(centripetal)=mv2r=F(friction)=μR F_(centripetal) = \frac{mv^2}{r} = F_(friction) = \mu R

3)It is the fact that the disk is not smooth that is causing the particle to move in a circle. If the disk were smooth there would be no centripetal force acting on the particle. If there were no other forces acting the particle would remain stationary.

Thanks, one thing though, if it slips, in which direction does the particle move? Towards the centre? I just cannot bring myself imagine a particle moving on rotating cd, it just seems to fall off!
Oh got it ,the particle moves in circle.
Reply 3
CubeDude
1)On the point of slipping, its currently in equilibrium with respect to its radial distance from the centre of the disk.
2)I dont think its important what force is moving the disk. It does not however rotate due to the presence of the particle.

"Here, the centripetal force is provided by the frictional force F N between the particle and the disc."
This means the centripetal force on the particle is provided by the frictional force between the particle and the disk. F(centripetal)=mv2r=F(friction)=μR F_(centripetal) = \frac{mv^2}{r} = F_(friction) = \mu R

3)It is the fact that the disk is not smooth that is causing the particle to move in a circle. If the disk were smooth there would be no centripetal force acting on the particle. If there were no other forces acting the particle would remain stationary.

If there was no friction on the cd, the particle doesn't move with the cd, right? Or does it? I am confused again.
Reply 4
ssadi
Thanks, one thing though, if it slips, in which direction does the particle move? Towards the centre? I just cannot bring myself imagine a particle moving on rotating cd, it just seems to fall off!
Oh got it ,the particle moves in circle.


The radial distance of the particle would increase.
Reply 5
CubeDude
The radial distance of the particle would increase.

But force is acting towards the centre. Doesn't that mean the particle moves toward the centre too? What does the direction of force imply here?Sorry for the late response, i was reading another thread.


Do you mean the particle fall off eventually?That's what I imagined:biggrin:
The centrifugal force, due to the rotation, acts outwards.
The centripetal force which counteracts this is provided by the friction between the mass and the disk and this acts in the opposite direction to the centrifugal force, i.e. towards the centre.
On the point of slipping means that the frictional force is only just strong enough to counteract the centrifugal forces; if the centrifugal force were any stronger (i.e. the disk was spinning faster) then the mass would fly off away from the centre.
When a body is on the point of slipping then the formula F="mu" R (where "mu" is the coefficient of static friction) can be used. If it wasn't slipping then F would be less than "mu" R.

If the disk was smooth then there is no interaction between the disk and the mass, so nothing would happen.
Reply 7
ghostwalker
The centrifugal force, due to the rotation, acts outwards.
The centripetal force which counteracts this is provided by the friction between the mass and the disk and this acts in the opposite direction to the centrifugal force, i.e. towards the centre.
On the point of slipping means that the frictional force is only just strong enough to counteract the centrifugal forces; if the centrifugal force were any stronger (i.e. the disk was spinning faster) then the mass would fly off away from the centre.
When a body is on the point of slipping then the formula F="mu" R (where "mu" is the coefficient of static friction) can be used. If it wasn't slipping then F would be less than "mu" R.

If the disk was smooth then there is no interaction between the disk and the mass, so nothing would happen.

But they say centrifugal force is fictious:s-smilie:
Reply 8
Whoa. Let's just calm down.

I am not really accusing you of grossly not understanding this problem, and I am sure that you are a very able persson when it comes to the core modules.


Unfortunately, after reading the first post, it is clear you have not grasped Newton's Laws. You may be able to remeber them and Believe in them, but you do not understand them.

I really think if you stopped your work now, and really tried to secure what is going on in the way forces are concerned, etc, you would understand how the forces come into play for these types of questions.
Sorry, can't explain. Ignore the comment.
Reply 10
DeanK2
Whoa. Let's just calm down.

I am not really accusing you of grossly not understanding this problem, and I am sure that you are a very able persson when it comes to the core modules.


Unfortunately, after reading the first post, it is clear you have not grasped Newton's Laws. You may be able to remeber them and Believe in them, but you do not understand them.

I really think if you stopped your work now, and really tried to secure what is going on in the way forces are concerned, etc, you would understand how the forces come into play for these types of questions.

I think I can apply Newton's laws when it is all moving in straight lines, but it starts to get dizzying once it moves in circles.
Reply 11
ghostwalker
Sorry, can't explain. Ignore the comment.

Thanks for the reply, even though the force is fictious it helps imagination though:biggrin:.
Now my next step will be to find an alternative for the centrifugal force. And look what I have found already:
Later the general theory of relativity further generalized the idea of frame independence of the laws of physics, and abolished the special position of inertial frames, at the cost of introducing curved space-time. Following an analogy with centrifugal force (sometimes called "artificial gravity" or "false gravity"), gravity itself became a fictitious force,[56] as enunciated in the principle of equivalence.[57]

The principle of equivalence: There is no experiment observers can perform to distinguish whether an acceleration arises because of a gravitational force or because their reference frame is accelerating

Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, p. 155
What do I do now?:biggrin: Relative theories are suspended for now, Just i will assume centrifugal force exists and carry on my work. And I used to argue with my dad that centrifugal force doesn't exist:s-smilie:
Reply 12
ssadi
But they say centrifugal force is fictious:s-smilie:


Centrifugal force is only fictitious in a non-rotating referernce frame (i.e. one in which newton's laws apply). If you want to look at the problem from the frame of reference of the particle you can do, but it may also be solved from the frame of reference of a stationary observer.

In this case I would simply use the non-rotating refernce frame, mv2r=μR \frac{mv^2}{r} = \mu R If the frictional force is constant, what happens if the disk spins faster given that v=rω v = r\omega ? Play around with these and you should find r must increase if equilibrium is to be achieved. These equations apply when looking as an outside observer, and do not require cetrifugal force to be invoked.
Reply 13
I still think if you are able to apply Newtons laws to a straight problem, then you should be able to do them for circular motion (the diagram makes should help).

I think you are overthinking the problem by talking about the TGR.
Reply 14
CubeDude
Centrifugal force is only fictitious in a non-rotating referernce frame (i.e. one in which newton's laws apply). If you want to look at the problem from the frame of reference of the particle you can do, but it may also be solved from the frame of reference of a stationary observer.

In this case I would simply use the non-rotating refernce frame, mv2r=μR \frac{mv^2}{r} = \mu R If the frictional force is constant, what happens if the disk spins faster given that v=rω v = r\omega ? Play around with these and you should find r must increase. These equations apply when looking as an outside observer, and do not require cetrifugal force to be invoked.

That makes sense:yep: Thanks a lot.

Latest