This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Uniform circular motion page were merged into Circular motion on 11 October 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the Non-uniform circular motion page were merged into Circular motion on 11 October 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Is there a particular reason that some equations in this article show angular velocity as ω and others use Ω? I find this confusing and it is not standard in the textbooks I have. I thought maybe the article is trying to emphasize the difference between the vector form and the scalar form of the angular velocity, but if that is the case then the acceleration a and radius r should also be capitalized as vectors. Inconsistency leads to confusion if there not a clear reason. If there are no objections in the next little while, I will go ahead and change this.
129.63.129.196 ( talk) 19:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please send me some example of gravitational motion! a test with answer! unsigned
What about vertical circular motion, such as an outside, noncentripetal force? This article never mentions it, a link (which I cannot find) or an explination would be nice. -- 1698 2006 01 08 01:40 (PST)
The explanation of the word 'centripetal' appears in the article centripetal force. It should not appear in this article. Bo Jacoby 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious about the jerk vector of circular motion. I know it must exist, because the acceleration vector is a first degree vector. Deriving the acceleration vector yields the vector (x'''(t),y'''(t)), where x'''(t) = Rw3sinwt, y'''(t) = -Rw3coswt. I would imagine that if the instantaneous displacement would be described by the circle of motion, the instantaneous velocity by a line tangent to the circle of motion in the direction of rotation, the instantaneous acceleration by a line from the circle of motion towards the center of motion, that the instantaneous jerk would be described by a point at the center of motion. That’s only conjecture on my part, and I really don’t know enough about the subject to add it into the article, but it would be interesting to see the result of someone who does to do so.
The position is z=Reiωt. Differentiation is d/dt=iω. Triple differentiation is (d/dt)3=(iω)3 = −iω3. So instantaneous jerk is d3z/dt3=−iω3z=−iω3Reiωt. The numerical value of the jerk is |d3z/dt3|=ω3R. The direction of the jerk is opposite that of the velocity. Bo Jacoby 13:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems as though someone had some fun.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone explain the remark at the end of the article?
Using all of the above , a ball of 'r' radius rolling of a cylinder of 'R' radius will always come off the cylinder of 48.2 degrees ( cosx = 2/3), this will happen on any planet, and both R and r values can be anything, as long as air resistance is ignored.
I don't understand it. It seems to be referring to a concrete example details of which are details are missing. If it's making a useful point, it would be good to give it some more context. Dependent Variable ( talk) 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It only makes sense to have just one article about Circular motion. There is no need for an article for each of the different concepts related to circular motion:
uniform circular motion,
Non-uniform circular motion,
angular velocity,
angular displacement,
angular acceleration,
Angular frequency
centripetal force, and
centrifugal force. I will attempt to do this in the next month year.
sanpaz (
talk)
21:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be pleased to take on the task of merging these three articles. Prof McCarthy ( talk) 17:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Equations and Mathematical expression are not displaying correctly in may sections, could someone please correct them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmer Jamil Khan ( talk • contribs) 15:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Fairly sure there are some inaccuracies in both wording and information. For example, the normal force should be perpendicular to the track. It should never appear to be diagonal. Anyone else with perhaps more expertise care to correct me or the article depending on which is wrong? 72.65.245.74 ( talk) 01:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The labeling of the figures in the article is confusing. It goes Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, then for some reason it goes back to Figure 1 and Figure 2. In the article below (on the acceleration part) it refers to figure 2 , which happens to be the first figure 2 , not the second figure 2. It took me a few minutes which Figure 2 it was talking about. It seems more logical to just label the second figure 1 as 'figure 4' and the second figure 2 as 'figure 5'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.152.159 ( talk) 05:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Circular motion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
I belief the example in the article is wrong: "Consider a body of one kilogram, moving in a circle of radius one metre, with an angular velocity of one radian per second." And that the resulting speed is 1 metre per second.
The formula above says that speed is defined as: Speed = 2 * PI * r / T.
T is in that example "2 seconds" (= it takes to seconds to do a complete turn of 360° = 2 rad). Radius is of course 1 metre resulting in a speed of Speed = 2 * PI * 1 metre / 2 seconds = 1 rad per second.
Since the speed is wrong, all other derived results (acceleration, centripetal force, ...) are also wrong.
Can someone check and correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.104.118 ( talk) 07:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
When a fan is switched ON or OFF, the speed of particles of the fan go on increasing or decreasing for some time, however their directions are always tangential to their trajectories. During this time, it is non-uniform circular motion . Rohan Gajbhiye ( talk) 02:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I't was really helpfull . Rohan Gajbhiye ( talk) 02:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
The article fails the B-class criteria (#1 and #4). Far too much technical content and most of the article is unsourced. There is a 2019 "cleanup rewrite tag". -- Otr500 ( talk) 17:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
We seem to have ended up with a Lead that has some confused ideas likely to puzzle readers. This is an extract:
"The rotation around a fixed axis of a three-dimensional body involves the circular motion of its parts. The equations of motion describe the movement of the center of mass of a body. In circular motion, the distance between the body and a fixed point on the surface remains the same. Examples of circular motion include: ... a ceiling fan's blades rotating around a hub"
So the reader is encouraged to think about a ceiling fan. The equations of motion describe the movement of the center of mass of the body, which is presumably the middle of the axle in the middle of the fan, the one point that, in a properly-balanced fan, isn't actually going anywhere. So why do we have equations of movement to describe the one bit that isn't moving? And in circular motion, the distance between the body (is that the middle of the fan, which isn't going anywhere, or a point on the blades, which is actually moving in a circle) and a "fixed point on the surface" of what remains the same? A fan doesn't have a "surface". And in any case, in any rigid solid object, including ceiling fans, the distance between any fixed point on any part of it and any other fixed point, including its center of mass remains the same, no matter how it's moving. It would be true of the ceiling fan when it's turned off and not rotating. It was true of the ceiling fan when it was in the back of the electrician's delivery van, being driven in a straight line from the depot to the restaurant where it was finally fitted...
Is there any chance that someone who knows enough about the maths to avoid being instantly reverted could find a lead that actually makes sense to a reasonably intelligent but non-expert reader? Elemimele ( talk) 18:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 16 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmijares ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mgrcsudv13, VicVellV.
— Assignment last updated by Kmijares ( talk) 22:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)