- #1
lets_resonate
- 15
- 0
Hello world,
I'm trying to understand the derivation of the centrifugal force equation, [tex]F_{centrifugal} = - m \omega \times \left( \omega \times r \right)[/tex]. I used these pages to help me in my pursuit:
However, I lack the background to understand either of these articles. This last school year, I completed AP Calculus and first-year high school physics. I understood the material fairly well, but it does not appear to be enough to figure out the concepts discussed here. I will be taking AP Physics, multivariable calculus, and linear algebra next year.
So, off we go:
1.
Uhh... what? The derivative of what with respect to time? Omega times what? It appears this is some sort of a fill-in-the-blanks equation - just down below, they fill the blanks in with r. But can anyone explain the meaning of this equation? Why does it supposedly make sense?
By the way, the "times" symbol, [tex]\times[/tex], represents the cross product.
2.
It appears to me that to obtain [tex]a_i[/tex], they simply took the derivative of [tex]v_i[/tex], the equation for which is:
[tex]v_i = v_r + \omega \times r[/tex].
However, when I do it, I get a different result:
[tex]a_i = \frac {d} {dt} \left( v_i \right) = \frac {d} {dt} \left( v_r + \omega \times r \right) =a_r + \omega \times v_r + \alpha \times r[/tex]
I simply differentiated the expression for [tex]v_i[/tex], using the product rule for the cross product. Alpha is angular acceleration, which is the derivative of angular speed, omega. What did I do wrong?
----
For now, I'll be happy to just understand these 2 problems. I won't even begin about the Wikipedia article (any math-related Wikipedia article has a crushing effect on my self-esteem). If anyone can offer some help, I'll appreciate it highly.
I'm trying to understand the derivation of the centrifugal force equation, [tex]F_{centrifugal} = - m \omega \times \left( \omega \times r \right)[/tex]. I used these pages to help me in my pursuit:
- http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/space/centrifugal/centrifugal6.html"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame"
However, I lack the background to understand either of these articles. This last school year, I completed AP Calculus and first-year high school physics. I understood the material fairly well, but it does not appear to be enough to figure out the concepts discussed here. I will be taking AP Physics, multivariable calculus, and linear algebra next year.
So, off we go:
1.
From the NASA article
We wish to express Newton's second law in a reference frame that rotates uniformly and with angular velocity w (units of radians per second) relative to our inertial reference frame. This is accomplished by applying the coordinate transformation
[tex]\left( \frac {d} {dt} \right) _{i} = \left( \frac {d} {dt} \right) _{r} + \omega \times[/tex]
Uhh... what? The derivative of what with respect to time? Omega times what? It appears this is some sort of a fill-in-the-blanks equation - just down below, they fill the blanks in with r. But can anyone explain the meaning of this equation? Why does it supposedly make sense?
By the way, the "times" symbol, [tex]\times[/tex], represents the cross product.
2.
From the NASA article again
Upon applying the coordinate transformation a second time, to [tex]v_i[/tex], we obtain an expression for acceleration [tex]a_i[/tex] in the rotating reference frame:
[tex]a_i = a_r + 2 \omega \times v_r + w \times \left( \omega \times r \right)[/tex]
It appears to me that to obtain [tex]a_i[/tex], they simply took the derivative of [tex]v_i[/tex], the equation for which is:
[tex]v_i = v_r + \omega \times r[/tex].
However, when I do it, I get a different result:
[tex]a_i = \frac {d} {dt} \left( v_i \right) = \frac {d} {dt} \left( v_r + \omega \times r \right) =a_r + \omega \times v_r + \alpha \times r[/tex]
I simply differentiated the expression for [tex]v_i[/tex], using the product rule for the cross product. Alpha is angular acceleration, which is the derivative of angular speed, omega. What did I do wrong?
----
For now, I'll be happy to just understand these 2 problems. I won't even begin about the Wikipedia article (any math-related Wikipedia article has a crushing effect on my self-esteem). If anyone can offer some help, I'll appreciate it highly.
Last edited by a moderator: