Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There's something I'm very confused about, when you have a particle moving on the top of the outer surface of a sphere. Why is it that the centripetal force is equal to the normal reaction plus the component of the weight acting towards the centre? I'd've thought that the weight would be 'helping' the centripetal force, and so the reaction would equal the weight plus the centripetal force. Why is this not the case?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sataris)
    There's something I'm very confused about, when you have a particle moving on the top of the outer surface of a sphere. Why is it that the centripetal force is equal to the normal reaction plus the component of the weight acting towards the centre? I'd've thought that the weight would be 'helping' the centripetal force, and so the reaction would equal the weight plus the centripetal force. Why is this not the case?
    your question is typical of a student which does maths and physics.

    the centripetal force is a "fictitious force" which only exists in the physics vocabulary.
    the are only two forces acting on the particle, assuming smooth.

    the weight
    the normal reaction
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Remember that the centripetal force as TeeEm said is a 'fictitious force' - it is the RESULTANT force towards the centre of a circle.
    Well if at the top and on the outside of a sphere, taking inwards as positive, mg-R= centripetal force.
    Attached Images
     
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    your question is typical of a student which does maths and physics.

    the centripetal force is a "fictitious force" which only exists in the physics vocabulary.
    the are only two forces acting on the particle, assuming smooth.

    the weight
    the normal reaction
    Okay, but I still don't quite understand how to relate them in an equation. I'm having trouble with 7a:

    https://8a40d6c38bafca75cc407741c0f3...%20Edexcel.pdf
    https://8a40d6c38bafca75cc407741c0f3...%20Edexcel.pdf

    The mark scheme adds the weight and reaction together, but I don't see why the weight shouldn't be negative there...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andywells)
    Remember that the centripetal force as TeeEm said is a 'fictitious force' - it is the RESULTANT force towards the centre of a circle.
    Well if at the top and on the outside of a sphere, taking inwards as positive, mg-R= centripetal force.
    That seems very fair. But in the mark scheme in my above post, they add the reaction to the weight instead of subtracting it. What's going on?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sataris)
    That seems very fair. But in the mark scheme in my above post, they add the reaction to the weight instead of subtracting it. What's going on?
    Yes, R is negative as they've defined inwards as positive but in any case, it really doesn't matter as R=0. Perhaps the (+R) is to indicate the inclusion of a reaction force, rather than an addition.
    Attached Images
     
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andywells)
    Yes, R is negative as they've defined inwards as positive but in any case, it really doesn't matter as R=0. Perhaps the (+R) is to indicate the inclusion of a reaction force, rather than an addition.
    Ah, that's fine then. Thanks for the help!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sataris)
    Ah, that's fine then. Thanks for the help!
    andywells has answered your question

    In mathematics the convention is that the mathematical acceleration (r double dot) is directed radially outwards because that is the direction of r increasing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sataris)
    There's something I'm very confused about, when you have a particle moving on the top of the outer surface of a sphere. Why is it that the centripetal force is equal to the normal reaction plus the component of the weight acting towards the centre? I'd've thought that the weight would be 'helping' the centripetal force, and so the reaction would equal the weight plus the centripetal force. Why is this not the case?
    The centripetal force is essentially the overall force of motion in this circular motion situation. So mv2/r (centripetal force)=component of weight - reaction force. If you do A2 physics, then thinking about Unit 4 mechanics should be helpful.

    Hope this helps
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    your question is typical of a student which does maths and physics.

    the centripetal force is a "fictitious force" which only exists in the physics vocabulary.
    the are only two forces acting on the particle, assuming smooth.

    the weight
    the normal reaction
    I think that it's at best "non standard" to call the centripetal force "fictitious" and at worst simply wrong.

    The centripetal force ("centre seeking force") is the force required to keep an object moving on a curved path. It's a real force generated by real interactions, such as by the pull of a string, or the reaction at a physical surface.

    Usually a force is called fictitious if it has to be invoked to explain motion that is seen by a non-inertial observer, such as one who is accelerating linearly or rotating.

    So, for example, suppose you see a mass travelling at constant speed about a fixed point, due its being tied to a string. Then a non-rotating observer sees that the velocity vector of the mass is changing, and hence by N2 he realises that the vector sum of the forces acting on it is non-zero; this corresponds with the fact that he can see that the string produces the required force.

    On the other hand, an observer rotating in the same direction and at the same rate as the mass sees the mass as stationary. However, he also sees a string, which must be pulling it toward the centre. By N2, he realises that since it is stationary, there must be another force acting on the mass of equal size to that produced by the string, but in the opposite direction.

    He is aware that he and the mass are rotating, so he therefore says that when a mass rotates it experiences two forces, one of which pulls it away from the centre; he calls this the centrifugal force ("centre fleeing force") but it's fictitious since it doesn't arise due to any real interaction or object, and he only has to invoke it due to the fact that he is in a rotating frame.

    Fictitious forces are only needed to make Newton's laws work from the point of view of an accelerating observer, and the centripetal force in this example doesn't fall into that category.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    (..)
    Beautiful answer.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atsruser)
    I think that it's at best "non standard" to call the centripetal force "fictitious" and at worst simply wrong.

    The centripetal force ("centre seeking force") is the force required to keep an object moving on a curved path. It's a real force generated by real interactions, such as by the pull of a string, or the reaction at a physical surface.

    Usually a force is called fictitious if it has to be invoked to explain motion that is seen by a non-inertial observer, such as one who is accelerating linearly or rotating.

    So, for example, suppose you see a mass travelling at constant speed about a fixed point, due its being tied to a string. Then a non-rotating observer sees that the velocity vector of the mass is changing, and hence by N2 he realises that the vector sum of the forces acting on it is non-zero; this corresponds with the fact that he can see that the string produces the required force.

    On the other hand, an observer rotating in the same direction and at the same rate as the mass sees the mass as stationary. However, he also sees a string, which must be pulling it toward the centre. By N2, he realises that since it is stationary, there must be another force acting on the mass of equal size to that produced by the string, but in the opposite direction.

    He is aware that he and the mass are rotating, so he therefore says that when a mass rotates it experiences two forces, one of which pulls it away from the centre; he calls this the centrifugal force ("centre fleeing force") but it's fictitious since it doesn't arise due to any real interaction or object, and he only has to invoke it due to the fact that he is in a rotating frame.

    Fictitious forces are only needed to make Newton's laws work from the point of view of an accelerating observer, and the centripetal force in this example doesn't fall into that category.
    I certainly know what is "fictitious"as my background is mathematical physics having lectured analytical dynamics for 3 consecutive semesters in the 90s.
    (I know the exact standard terminology used with rotating frames of reference and indeed this is where the word fictitious is used as a compensary force).

    The context in which I used the word is simply "non distinct" as oppose to weight, tension, reaction etc but merely a resultant ...

    I sincerely appreciate the "correction" which I am sure was done for the benefit of the understanding of the student.

    As I am now a retired, old fool, I hope you put up with my inaccuracies as they are not deliberate ...

    Regards as always.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    The context in which I used the word is simply "non distinct" as oppose to weight, tension, reaction etc but merely a resultant ...
    Right. The centripetal force here arises as a resultant, rather than having a single physical cause, but to describe it as fictitious could be very confusing in the context of rotational motion. It's clear that you understand the term well enough to use it loosely but this is such a tricky area to discuss I prefer to be very precise in the language that is used.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 24, 2015

University open days

  1. University of Bradford
    University-wide Postgraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  2. University of Buckingham
    Psychology Taster Tutorial Undergraduate
    Wed, 25 Jul '18
  3. Bournemouth University
    Clearing Campus Visit Undergraduate
    Wed, 1 Aug '18
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.