So much confusion of concepts in the video and in the comments, so just to clarify things up as simply as possible: - The centrifugal force is *not* the reaction to the centripetal force, this designation was sometimes used long time ago but not anymore, the reaction to the centripetal force has no special name in modern physics. - The action/reaction pair do *not* affect the same object: the centripetal force applied to the object is the tension force from the string, the object exerts a reaction force *on the string* , this reaction force has no interest to us since we are studying the rotating object not the string. - When we are studying the rotating object in an inertial Reference Frame, we have only: Velocity (constant speed but changing direction), Acceleration (as a result of a changing velocity) and the Centripetal Force (string tension, gravity,...). In this set-up there is no need for a force to counter the Centripetal force, the object does not "fall" to the center because of it's acceleration; it is constantly "falling" but it is also curving so it keeps missing the center. - The reason the Centrifugal force is called fictitious (or inertial) is that it is needed only in a rotating Reference frame, if we are rotating with the object then there is no velocity and no acceleration, for us the object is just hanging there...and since it is under a central-pull force (string tension or gravity) we have to add a force to counter that pull to explain why the object does not fall to the center. - To convince ourselves why the Centrifugal force is not real, just examine what happens when we cut the string: there is no more Centripetal force so the object moves along a straight line that is a tangent to the circle (in the direction of the Velocity Vector at the moment the string was cut). If there where an actual Centrifugal force, the object should have moved in a straight radial line *perpendicular to the tangent* , which is not what happens in real life.
Thanks for this comment. I like the animation very much, but the explanations build two misconceptions. One is the wrong application of Newtons 3rd law. The other one is: The centripetal force is just a name for the needed net or resultant force, needed to make an object undergo a circular motion. The "formula" is basically a condition a net force must meet so that the object of mass m can undergo this kind of motion at speed c and radius r...
Sorry, just look at this videoand think again: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1G76HUvGyDE.html ...a ball on a string is not sufficient to explain this! Do the coins fly off at a tangent?? NO! And why does a centrifuge cause objects to fly outwards and not tangentally?? Because it is a CENTRIFUGE!
SO THE ANSWERE IS THE OUT WARD FORCE FROM SPINNING IS FROM THE OBJECT WANTING TO LEAVE/DISSASSOSIATE WITH THE CENTER AS IT WANTS TO STOP MOVING THUS CONCLUDING CENTRIPITAL FORCE IS CENTRIFUGAL FORCE?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Really...its the best explanation....these forces were explained with such details and it was still yet not overexerting for an 8th class kid! Thanks mrRyan
Liked the presentation. More subtle that you might think. Get out a sheet of paper and draw a circle on it. Imagine that the circle is a tube or pipe with water flowing through it. The centrifugal force experienced by the water would then be the same in the pipe or tube. As in the clip the forces, in order for the can or water to travel in a uniform circle are balanced --- they are of a similar magnitude but pointing, continuously in different directions. See the clip. And according to the right-hand rule of vectors, there are several spacial manifolds associated with these vectors. Including a cross product vector which is the same throughout the circle and pointing uniformly in the same direction along the curved circumference of the tubing or pipe. Now, fold the paper in half so that the two half circumferences are on top or congruent with the other half circumference... true enough, you might do this all in your mind's eye.... still with water flowing through it, all at the same velocity, and we are assuming complete laminar flow for the sake of simplicity. So that the various vectors in each of the limbs of the 1/2 circles are likely completely, or nearly so, canceling each other out as they are occupying the same inertial space. Bummer. What happens, in your mind's eye or with that folded sheet of paper, if the two limbs of the 1/2 circle are separated by 20 or there about degrees? So that the folded sheet of paper that the circle was originally drawn on might then appear to be something like a shallow 20 degree wedge? As in Huygens' equation: F = ma = m(v^2/r). The water's path is determined by the pipe or tubing .... for those that are interested and might want to buy a book, as a gift for yourself; head on over to Amazon to run the name 'James G. Parsons' in their search box to see what you get. A partial tiled is: 'Traveling Through Space: Without Rockets.' I'm sure that there are spelling, grammar, and perhaps other errors. But, save for the costs of the ideas and designs given in this book, they're free.
1:40 please explain. Is the video saying the mud actually sticks more as the tire spins until it spins to fast? So the mud is loose on the tire. The tire begins to spin and the mud sticks harder to the tire? Until the tire spins to fast? Please help me. Thx
I have no Idea, why this video only has 60 view and no likes, when it is so well produced. It explains the difference better than any video here on yt. Great video man.
because humans are vain and very few understand this stuff. A video about a woman farting on a flower offered by her cheating husband gets ten million views. Sad.
I like to use the illustration of the spinning man made moon in the film "Elysium". In that film artificial gravity is made by spinning the structure to simulate gravity. Now for this to work the houses MUST be placed on the underside of the outside rim with the floors on the outside and the roofs facing inwards pointing to the centre. The people in those houses would feel a force on their feet which is Centrifugal force. This force is countered by the tension in the spokes of Elysium. This tension is Centripetal force. Now if the houses are placed an opposite way with the roofs pointing outward, those houses would be unliveable as everyone inside would be pressed against their ceilings and water would not stay in the cups. The foundations of these houses would also have to be bolted down tight. The other thing to note is that if Elysium had two concentric wheels and houses on both rims, the people on the inner and outer rims would experience different gravities since the wheel spins at the same speed. Another curious thing I observed is that, if we tried to live on the moon and if the Moon had insufficient gravity, everybody there would be shot straight back to earth.....unless they lived on the dark side of the Moon. Dark side of the Moon?....how can that be true unless the moon does not spin at all, Surely some people somewhere on our planet should be able to see the other side at some point in time?. Does the Moon not spin on its axis like Earth? This also proves that gravity on Earth is not caused by the spinning but by the sheer mass of the planet drawing us all to its centre. Sunday morning musings.....this is not supposed to be educational but more like inquisitive
Centripetal force is the equal and opposite reaction of gravity (Gravity is a expenditure of force) and centrifugal force(The gravity that an object feels when it exists in a circular function) is the equal and opposite reaction of centripetal force, which can be illustrated by the increase of gravity on the Gravitron Amusement Ride...
This is easy, just one force linear vector away from center toward circumference and an equal opposite one, centrifugal and centripetal. Light tensor point particles are interesting 🤔.
This may be a matter of convention or how you name forces, But respectfully I totally disagree. Firstly, the torque at the center of the moving object (can) is the 'force' that rotates the string and creates the tension AND also 'drags' along the can around the center. Without the can, the string would not attain its tension. Therefore the torque from the center created two forces, 1. centripetal force opposing the can from continuing in its linear motion to follow Newton's first law and secondly to 'pull' the can to velocity. In simple terms the torque creates centripetal and tangential acceleration to the can. If you take the resultant of these two forces, attributed to the rotating centripetal force and the tangential acceleration created, it is not directly opposite to the centripetal force BUT it is diagonally vectored inwards away from the center and towards the direction of rotation. The centrifugal force then, is the one opposing the resultant of the torque creating the two forces. The faster the rotation, the more slanted is the resultant vector Since the object in the can is also moving in the can, from its inertial frame of reference, the centrifugal force feels directly opposite to the centripetal force because it is also moving in the direction of rotation. BUT from an outsider's inertial frame of reference, the centrifugal force is diagonal and away from direction of rotation. When the string is cut or released, the can would not 'purely' continue tangential at point of release but retains its momentum due to the centrifugal force existed before release and fly somewhat outwards from center of rotation. Of course, a simple experiment based on visual observation would not detect this actions but a frame to frame analysis of high speed photography would prove this - That the can would not fly off exactly tangential to the circumference of rotation. Apologies for the long comment. Thank you for the video.
Sir in case of mud attached to wheel....if rotation speed increases centripital force should increase...then why mud moves in radial instead of attachingto wheel more tightly
Awesome video! I have just one doubt in the example of the mud that is binded to the tire as it rotates. What is the centripetal force equal to in that case? As in the other examples, the centripetal force on the can is the tension of the rope and the centripetal force that pulls our moon towards the center of the earth is the force of gravity. So whats the centripetal force equal to in the example of the tire? And how can I calculate the maximum speed of the mud (treating it as a particle) before the centripetal force can't hold it to the center of the tire?
increase in mass/veocity or decrease in radius increases centripetal force or pull toward into earth. therefore more force needed to overcome this s velocity of object increases
Hmm I'm curious about the mud on the tires though. It doesnt seem like there would be a centripetal force there since the mud is literally just stuck to the outer layer of the tire. It's not being pulled toward the center of the wheel in any way...is it?
I fully understand the forces and their correct names, including the physics behind it all. But I’m totally confused as to how the wasp got inside of a sealed can and is still managing to walk on the base of the van interior. Was it some sort of factory where an employee was disgruntled and decided to can the wasp, or did the wasp climb into the can and eat the food and is alive because nobody can see that it isn’t dead. It’s only dead when the can is opened. ;o)
Ok, I've been trying to figure this out by watching a few things and reading others. I'm willing to admit that I don't quite have a good grasp on it yet, but is my thinking correct here?--> If I was in a box, and the box and I were travelling happily in a straight line, and somehow the box was stopped, I would obviously continue on and hit the side of the box. Now, if my inertia was somehow maintained, I would be constantly pushed into the wall of the box. There is no new force acting on me, but it certainly feels like there is. Is that essentially what centrifugal force is? If an object was travelling in a straight line, and all is stable, and then it was restricted by a curved path or off-set rope, the only new force acting on the object is the force that is now trying to drag it to the centre of a circle (that's the centripetal force, right?). However, that object would now 'experience' almost a conflict between trying to travel straight and being made to turn. Is that conflict the centrifugal force?
You would have to be, not just moving inside the can, but accelerating, to be pushed to the wall. Once you stopped accelerating and maintained a constant speed, then you would be, well, it's like being in a car. Accelerate, and you are pinned to seat. Maintain 55, and you feel no force.
I found the way it was described here a bit more confusing than it had to be. Centrifugal force is only a "thing" when you're inside a rotating inertial frame of reference. Even then, you're not actually feeling centrifugal force, you're feeling your reaction to it. So, in that can, or in that car, is YOUR inertial frame of reference. If you're going a constant speed, not turning, you feel no motion. You feel to be at rest. That's your inertial frame of reference, as well as anything you act open. That's why you can throw a ball around, while your car is going a steady 100 km/h, and it won't fly to the back and hit the back window. If you suddenly go around a bend, you feel you're being pushed out, opposite of the way the wheels are turning, but that's only because your body is still kind of "trying" to continue straight, but is being "held in" by the door, or the armrest, or another person's body, or whatever. If you were to go around a traffic circle, at a constant speed, you wouldn't feel any acceleration pushing you into the back of your seat, anymore. But as the front of the vehicle keeps changing its angle into a new angle, to stay in the circle, your body will keep feeling like it's being pushed out. You keep "wanting" to continue on straight, but you're being held in. It's an "apparent" force because you're not really being pushed "out," you just kind of want to keep going straight, at any given angle, but that angle keeps changing. If the whole car were to disappear, and you kept going, you'd just continue going straight at the point the car disappeared, just like when the string was cut. From outside that reference point, it simply looks like the can, for example, wants to go straight, but is being constantly course corrected inside of the circle. If you cut the string, it won't "fly out" at some unpredictable angle, it'll continue going straight at whichever point it's cut. I hope that's somewhat helpful, at least? 😣 Many years late. Oof. You can experiment with this for yourself by using a clear water bottle or something, trying a string through the lid somehow (some of them even have spots for key chains) and putting a marble or a small ball or something in it. 👍🏻
You say.. "Swing a can around your head" --- without ever acknowledging that force or quantifying it. If the centripetal force is is the tension of the rope pulling to the center-- then what was the initial force called? The force of your arm throwing the can and the continual spinning of the hand to make it keep going-- what is that force called?
2:15 that's not Newton's third law,but as in the frame of reference of the rotating body,for the body to be in equilibrium a force must act on the body
Sir, in that car wheel example you have said that if speed increases centrepetal force is not enough to hold the mud, but centrepetal force=mv2/r so if v increase centrepetal force should increase no...
I know it's been 8 months but. Increasing the speed increases the centripetal force REQUIRED to keep the mud attached to the wheel and moving in a circle. If the centripetal force REQUIRED to move in a circle is greater than the adhesion force keeping the mud on the tire (which is the acting Centripetal force), the mud will fly off. Centrifugal effect is more like a lack of centripetal force.
Just to be clear all this hateful speeches are the truth I am not sorry because humans do not apologies to animals and I did it like this so you can see it
When an orbital body plain, or planetoid, that has is own rotating center force flow from within and circular rotation as it orbits around the center body it is gravitating towards, simultaneously as it is countered by it's own original plan, path away from, and around. This countering gravitational force that's pulling on and away, this creates it's own gravitational force from within as it orbits around and rotates. Thus, the centrifugal force is real.
What I don't understand is that if you cut the rope it will fly outward not in! So how is the object trying to return to the center? If anything it returns to the circumference.
the mud isn't attached by a rope or anything else that might pull it inwards equal to the centrifugal force, it was simply on the tire. The centrifugal force was more. :)
OK. Now I want to know what happens to the fly, pressed to the bottom of the can by its inertia or lack of centripetal force if the string is cut. Can goes out in a straight line, does the fly get pressed against the back of the can, stay on the bottom, what?
At the instant the string is cut, both the can and the fly enter a state of free-fall, so the fly becomes weightless. Both centripetal and centrifugal forces disappear.
The "active" and "reactive" forces under newton's 3rd law never are never exerted on the same body. If that were the case nothing could ever accelerate...
@DarkEdgeXD The centripetal force is acting on the can too, that is the force that keeps it in circular motion. Both forces do zero work so "working" is kinda misleading.
Thank you for posting, great video. Only 1 part of this video doesn't make sense to me. How would the centripetal force hold the mud on the tire? There is no centripetal force if the tire is not rotating, correct? Yet the mud stays on. This is caused by the adhesion of the mud to the tire, correct? In which case, when rotating, the force holding the mud to the tire is the adhesive force, and the mud falls off when the inertia (or "centrifugal") force is greater than the adhesive force? Or am i completely wrong here. Thank you!
When the tyre spins, the adhesive force of the mud on the tyre becomes the centripetal force. think of it this way: the adhesive force of the mud is like the string of the spinning can, the mud the can , and the tyre a person spinning the can. As the tyre spins, it 'strains' the string, adhesive force, and the string snaps. The can, mud, flies off in tangential course (the way its inertia leads it to go)
Greetings. I thank Mr. Pitcher for his contribution to the public knowledge. I have a few questions to ask. I welcome and I thank the possible answer of any reader. 1) What IS V in your formula? Does it represent the angular velocity of the rotating object? If so why do you not mention it? 2) Let’s look at the scenario in which a car is moving with a constant velocity of V in a straight line before enters into a circular path. Due to its inertia it has tendency to resist deviating from the straight line that it was moving. When it enters the curve of radius R Suppose V is the velocity of the car and it was constant. The fictitious force of Centrifugal makes the driver feel being pulled say to the right. The car does not tip over. Next suppose the same car enters the same curve with three times the previous speed and it will tip over due to its higher fictitious force of centrifugal. Now, once its speed has increased to three times, the centripetal force is supposed to increase by a factor of Nine. The centripetal force has increase much more so it should be much stronger according to your formula rather than weaker and causes the car to tipped over? In your demonstration of the rotating tire, when the speed of the rotation increased then centripetal force must get much stronger by the formula you presented and it should hold the mod on the top of the tire and prevent it from flying away tangent to the circle rather than other way around. 3) Here in your demonstration, the acceleration is due to the change of direction of the velocity and not to the change of the magnitude of the velocity (Am I correct?). Then how do you know the acceleration vector is perpendicular to the velocity vector that is tangent to the circle (curve)? 4) By Newton’s third law of motion for every action there is a reaction in same magnitude but opposite in direction, as you mentioned. Then if the fictitious Centrifugal force is suppose to be the a reaction to the centripetal then should it not be in the radial direction pulling the object away from the circle in the direction of the radius rather than tangent to the path? 5) From the animated demonstration I fully comprehend the reason for the centrifugal force to be fictitious and not a real force.
Right, to answer your first question, the V in the initial formula refers to the object's linear velocity, i.e. Tangential velocity, not angular velocity. Angular velocity is represented by another equation, Fc=mr(w)squared. Actually it's the alphabet omega but it looks like a w.
Now, for your second question, if the car was to enter the bend at 3 times the speed, the centripetal force required to keep it in circular motion is also tripled as the equation dictates. But the frictional force between the tyres and the road are constant and have a maximum value. If the centripetal force needed to allow the car to turn exceeds the frictional force provided by the tyres and the road, it will tip over due to the inertia of the car.
If the speed tripled, the force required would increase by a factor of 9, because Fc = mv^2/r. That squared on the V makes a big difference. That is why in the video he says increasing the tangential velocity increases the force more than increasing mass or decreasing radius.
Thank you for such a clear and realistic description "Lack of Centripetal force Pump" would be a more appropriate name for those "Centrifugal pumps" my comments below were written before I finished your video......sorry.
Velocity has magnitude (speed) and direction. You will have acceleration when either one of this changes. Changing speed is linear acceleration, changing direction is centripetal acceleration.
Summary: --->The axis of rotation is directed towards the center of rotation or along the radius. --->The centripetal force binds the object to keep moving along in a circular motion. In various cases, it might be the gravitational force of sun or the tensions of string or the steering while taking a turn and etcetera. It is observed from an inertial frame of reference.(i.e. non accelerating frame of reference) --->The centrifugal force is a pseudo force, which acts due to inertia of the body. It is observed from a non-inertial frame of reference. (i.e. accelerating frame of reference) ---->While centripetal force is an actual force, centrifugal force is defined as an apparent force. In other words, when twirling a mass on a string, the string exerts an inward centripetal force on the mass, while mass "appears" to exert an outward centrifugal force on the string. --->Clearly, since the two forces belong in different frames, they do not cancel out each other in your frame i.e. from the VIEWER'S frame they cancel out only in the frame of reference of body as the body does not move in THAT frame. --->When you are rotating a stone/ball tied to a thread you seem to think that you are feeling an outward/centrifugal force, but it is actually the tension of the thread, see at the end of the ball tension is directed towards the center of rotation and is hence centripetal force, but the same tension at the point/center of rotation is directed towards the ball, therefore you feel an outward force but it is NOT centrifugal force. --->They both are equal and opposite in magnitude but do NOT act in the same frame of reference.
Confusing. First you said that when velocity is increased centripedal force also increases, but in tge example of mud on tyre, you said that due to the increase in velocity centripedal force is "not great enough". Can you please explain this?
If a spring scale with a test mass attached to it were place inside the tin can, would the scale register a force acting on the test mass? If the answer is yes, then that detected force would be called a "centrifugal force" acting on the mass.
Three elements are in question; inertia, centripetal force and “centrifugal force“. Let’s examine them one at a time. Attach an extra large mass to one end of a string with the other end attached to the can, inside is your scale and test mass. Take the whole thing into space away from all other massive objects. Accelerate your can/scale/mass thus imparting inertia to it. The centripetal force (string) acts on it and causes it to begin a circular path around the XLmass. The scale begins to register “weight”. Eliminate the can/scale/mass inertia (that is, stop the movement of the can/mass/scale). Does the scale register “weight” now? Where did the “centrifugal force” go? Start everything moving again. Now, eliminate the centripetal force (that is, cut the string). Does the scale still register “weight”? Where did the “centrifugal force” go this time? Replace the string and start everything in motion once again. Now eliminate the “centrifugal force”. Explain how you did it.
I still don’t get it. Nothing wants to go to the center in a rotating object hence there is no such thing as centripetal force. I know I’m wrong but just can’t comprehend.
According to Newtons 3rd law action and reaction forces do not act on the same body, Centripetal and centrifugal act on the same revolving body, hence they are not action and reaction forces. Correct explanation is like this, "If centripetal force is action acting on the revolving body the reaction force is called centrifugal reaction and this source acted on the central agency which is exerting the centripetal force. There are altogether 3 forces we come across. Centripetal forces and centrifugal forces are action and reaction forces according to newton's 3rd law, the centrifugal force is a pseudo force arousing due to Newtons 1st law.
