Centripetal vs Centrifugal

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 23 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 479

  • @mjsaedy6637
    @mjsaedy6637 6 років тому +388

    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.

    • @raphaelbarengo3274
      @raphaelbarengo3274 6 років тому +21

      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...

    • @statx9046
      @statx9046 6 років тому +5

      I wanted to ask that why the string through which iam rotating the body breaks if eres no centrifugal. Force

    • @1patbat
      @1patbat 5 років тому +2

      Sorry, just look at this videoand think again:
      ua-cam.com/video/1G76HUvGyDE/v-deo.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!

    • @siddiki9778
      @siddiki9778 5 років тому +2

      Thanks for the simple explanation!

    • @brandondumont7223
      @brandondumont7223 5 років тому +1

      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?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  • @TheStopmotionLord
    @TheStopmotionLord 7 років тому +12

    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

    • @Monochromicornicopia
      @Monochromicornicopia 5 років тому +6

      Actually its a very poor explanation. The centripetal force is not a action-reaction pair with the centrifugal "force" of inertia.

    • @DrDeuteron
      @DrDeuteron 5 місяців тому

      8+6...so hows' that physics Bachleor's coming along?

  • @richardsidler
    @richardsidler 2 роки тому +3

    Best explanation so far. Thank you!

  • @pragashgnana4155
    @pragashgnana4155 5 років тому +101

    Did anyone else get dizzy when it showed the bee in the can and the background was spinning fast?

  • @kimberleebrackley2793
    @kimberleebrackley2793 4 роки тому +2

    Many thanks! I'll be watching this a few, several more times to override another non fact in my education. Many many thanks

    • @axiom.ai.obviousbattletank7139
      @axiom.ai.obviousbattletank7139 3 роки тому

      Why? This video isn't correct.

    • @Ponkdonker
      @Ponkdonker 3 роки тому +1

      @@axiom.ai.obviousbattletank7139 Yes, it is. Explain how it's not. You can't, because this is scientific FACT.

    • @drew7155
      @drew7155 2 роки тому

      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

  • @asj511
    @asj511 9 років тому +87

    This is probably the best explanation out there. Thank you!

    • @myungjoonlee3137
      @myungjoonlee3137 9 років тому +1

      +Amarildo Júnior Agreed

    • @damirkarlic5832
      @damirkarlic5832 7 років тому +1

      agreed!!

    • @jamaluddin9158
      @jamaluddin9158 7 років тому +9

      This video is actually very misleading.

    • @ihtemad
      @ihtemad 6 років тому +1

      You should check out walter lewin

    • @clavo3352
      @clavo3352 6 років тому +1

      Pitcher: Totally agree with Toquinha.

  • @jimparsons6803
    @jimparsons6803 3 роки тому +9

    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.

  • @seanroland612
    @seanroland612 4 роки тому +2

    Wow...after years I finally understand! Thank you!

  • @nonametrick1
    @nonametrick1 4 роки тому +2

    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?

    • @zenvir1680
      @zenvir1680 4 роки тому +4

      Adhesive forces keeping mud stuck to tyre, is the answer of your question

  • @genericname6669
    @genericname6669 7 років тому +12

    Great explanation. I wish I was taught this clear in school and uni.

  • @thanoojpedada8225
    @thanoojpedada8225 4 роки тому +2

    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...

    • @bryanscheeler637
      @bryanscheeler637 4 роки тому +2

      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.

  • @TotalVikingPower
    @TotalVikingPower 10 років тому +41

    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.

    • @manigoyal4872
      @manigoyal4872 7 років тому +4

      TotalVikingPower
      now its 79k
      his hardwork is paying off

    • @e65666
      @e65666 6 років тому +2

      What making it work he uses initial incorrectly you are as dumb and incoherent as the person that made this video

    • @univuniveral9713
      @univuniveral9713 5 років тому +1

      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.

    • @navyasubba_4493
      @navyasubba_4493 4 роки тому

      @@univuniveral9713 xd

    • @CycleEnder
      @CycleEnder Рік тому

      It is because he has made many errors in the video.

  • @abrarali-go6lu
    @abrarali-go6lu 5 років тому

    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?

    • @lemuelhubilla1162
      @lemuelhubilla1162 5 років тому

      same thing made me scratch my head

    • @abrarali-go6lu
      @abrarali-go6lu 5 років тому

      @@lemuelhubilla1162 most people are there posting a jigsaw puzzle video, makong our minds always fucked up.

  • @e65666
    @e65666 6 років тому +4

    It is not because of lack of centripetal it relies on inertia which is tension and net

    • @Monochromicornicopia
      @Monochromicornicopia 5 років тому

      No the tension is the centripetal force. There is no centrifugal force

  • @Inverted-Compass
    @Inverted-Compass 7 місяців тому

    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...

  • @dereksmith7781
    @dereksmith7781 Рік тому

    This explained more to me as an adult then the month we spent on it in public highschool as an adolescent...

  • @raju8010
    @raju8010 7 років тому +1

    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

    • @dangarroumiltenberger3000
      @dangarroumiltenberger3000 5 місяців тому

      Imagine you're holding tas tight as you can onto the outside of those spinners at a playground. You feel tension in your arms as your torso feels like it is being pulled away from the center of the spinner. If the spinner rotates faster, you feel even more tension in your arms until eventually you can't hold on anymore and are flung off. The rotation speed increases and the centripetal force does increase (the tension increases in your arms) but your grip strength stays the same. Eventually, the tension is too great and your grip fails. The same thing is happening with the mud on the wheels. The mud is held with friction, like your grip. Eventually the force is too great and the mud's adhesion force is less than the tire's centripetal force, so the mud gets flung off. I know this is 6 years later but for future explorers this may be helpful.

  • @xOxAdnanxOx
    @xOxAdnanxOx 5 років тому +1

    how the tire example said that with more speed the centripetal force will not be great enough! Isn’t the opposite??

  • @Nicomancer001
    @Nicomancer001 5 років тому +13

    Had to watch this video again because I forgot the difference between the two....again.

  • @akashkaushik1
    @akashkaushik1 2 роки тому

    If the tire rotates at a higher velocity, won't the centripetal force increase (mv2/r) and cause the mud to the centre with even more force ?

    • @thewasabithatmakesyoongicry
      @thewasabithatmakesyoongicry 2 роки тому

      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. :)

  • @Nyjawonder
    @Nyjawonder Рік тому

    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

    • @MekonInBrisbane
      @MekonInBrisbane 4 місяці тому

      Astronomers no longer use the term "Dark side "of the moon we say "Far side". The moon does indeed spin on its axis at the same rate as its orbit, causing the same face to be shown to those on Earth no matter where on the planet they happen to be. . This is called "Tidally Locked". There is a slight 'wobble' in this rotation causing a little of the far side to be seen on either side at different times, but this is too small to be noticed by casual observers.

  • @192ali1
    @192ali1 9 років тому +4

    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.

    • @FGCounter1
      @FGCounter1 8 років тому +1

      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.

    • @FGCounter1
      @FGCounter1 8 років тому

      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.

    • @192ali1
      @192ali1 8 років тому +1

      Thank you Zhuang.
      your explanation was helpful.

    • @FGCounter1
      @FGCounter1 8 років тому

      No problem :)

    • @oamis
      @oamis 8 років тому +2

      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.

  • @jeffreydani8616
    @jeffreydani8616 5 місяців тому

    Should the center object rise when a sudden force is pushing at the center of the rope from below it ?

  • @TheTruthseeker707
    @TheTruthseeker707 8 років тому

    what I don't understand is how in the can in a constant state of acceleration if the velocity is NOT changing?

    • @mehroozmaati4244
      @mehroozmaati4244 8 років тому +3

      TheTruthseeker707. change in direction also causes acceleration

    • @oamis
      @oamis 8 років тому +7

      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.

    • @TheTruthseeker707
      @TheTruthseeker707 8 років тому

      oamis Got it. Thanks

  • @mx-flohwalzer9104
    @mx-flohwalzer9104 2 місяці тому

    this is really good! i finally understand why people say centrifugal force isn't real haha

  • @EnhancedNightmare
    @EnhancedNightmare Рік тому

    Excellent video, I was looking for a good explanation as even my professors could not explain it to me.

  • @ruthienium1804
    @ruthienium1804 2 роки тому

    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

  • @dustyroads834
    @dustyroads834 10 місяців тому

    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.

  • @solapowsj25
    @solapowsj25 2 роки тому

    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 🤔.

  • @calholli
    @calholli 3 роки тому

    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?

  • @johnsevilla6036
    @johnsevilla6036 3 місяці тому

    Okay, so when they say centrifugal force is only a concept that is used to describe the absence of centripetal force, is it similar to how “darkness” is fictitious in the sense that it is the absence of light?

  • @galencallahan6951
    @galencallahan6951 8 років тому

    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!

    • @nitikamehra3310
      @nitikamehra3310 8 років тому

      I think mud is stuck in the pits of the tyres .. And it is removed easily after some time .

    • @TheMillville7
      @TheMillville7 8 років тому +1

      Centrifugal force doesn't exist.

    • @bluecatlee1043
      @bluecatlee1043 8 років тому +1

      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)

  • @toddhardin7169
    @toddhardin7169 5 років тому +2

    Thank you, this is the clarity I needed for my application.

  • @csmith1912
    @csmith1912 6 років тому

    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?

    • @SuperMagnetizer
      @SuperMagnetizer 6 років тому

      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.

  • @hebekiah3623
    @hebekiah3623 6 років тому

    Thanks. Why did you quite making these?

  • @jovanaleksandric5757
    @jovanaleksandric5757 8 років тому +21

    Your video is WRONG AND NOT CORRECT.
    Why would you say that at 3:48? It is simply ignorant.
    Your rope is TIGHTENED.
    To tight the rope you need two people. One pulling in one direction at
    the one end, and the other one pulling in opposite direction at the
    other end. You are literally saying that one of those people are
    fictitious and imaginary and the other one is the only real one.
    You can not have a tight rope with only one force acting on one end. If
    only one man has pulled on the one end of the rope, it would have just
    moved/translated and not became tightened.
    The rope in your video is tightened because of both centripetal and
    centrifugal REACTIVE force ACTING on both ends.
    When viewing from the non-inertial frame of reference (bee's view)
    APPARENT CENTRIFUGAL FORCE is fictitious. But when viewing from outside,
    REACTIVE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE that is tightening the rope together with
    centripetal IS VERY REAL and it exists because of the can's MASS,
    ACCELERATION and RADIUS, and in one word INERTIA.
    Here is an article that could be helpful for you to understand better that the REACTIVE CENTRIFUGAL FORCE IS REAL.
    en (d0t) wikipedia (d0t) org (slassh) wiki (slassh) Reactive_centrifugal_force#Difference_from_centrifugal_pseudoforce

    • @jonnamechange6854
      @jonnamechange6854 8 років тому +2

      I thought the acceleration doesn't change, but is constant (whilst also ignoring acceleration to counter drag coefficient). Similar to your opinion, I thought that if centripetal force act along the axis of the rope from the can to the centre, then that should make the rope slacken, not tighten. As per usual science demos create more questions than answers. I only needed to know the difference between centripetal and centrifugal forces but now I'm under the illusion centrifugal forces are only fictitious. That's strange because I know the word exists and is in common usage. I don't know why I even bother. Maybe I'll take more time to study that wiki page and hope it's not just another futile waste of time.

    • @jovanaleksandric5757
      @jovanaleksandric5757 8 років тому

      Jon Cordingley
      Acceleration is not only changing of speed but changing of direction of movement also, so yes, here acceleration is constant but that's not important I think.
      Centripetal force is the "real" force of pulling the can towards the center and not letting it fly away.
      Centrifugal force is also "real" reaction force of the can by N3L. Because the can want's to keep moving straight not in the circle, so actually can is acting in the opposite direction and thus tightening the rope along with centripetal force.
      It is the basic thing we learn as structural engineers, you can not have tension or pressure without at least two force acting in opposite directions.
      The only "fictive" force would be CF force when being watched from a non-inertial frame of reference. So if you were in that can, you would feel that something invisible is dragging you towards one end of it. It is called inertial centrifugal pseudoforce that is acting on you inside of it.
      But I say again, reactive centrifugal force is the real thing because can has mass and because of its constant acceleration, it's pulling the rope in the direction away from the center.
      So conclusion,
      inertial fictive CF is acting only in non-inertial frame of reference on things inside the can (in this example),
      while CF reactive force is the real force of the can's mass resisting the circular motion and acting on the end of the rope away from the center.

    • @sour4704
      @sour4704 7 років тому +7

      well, thanks for clearing up that misconception, but you didn't have to be so mean about it.
      EDIT: naw nevermind, centrifugal force is just the result of inertia, what he says, an "apparent force" is correct.

    • @dhruvchopra5727
      @dhruvchopra5727 6 років тому

      Ur Absoulutely correct bro

    • @PseudoButBetter
      @PseudoButBetter 6 років тому

      The centrifugal force is simply the lack of centripetal force acting upon the contents of the can. The rope is being tightened because the contents of the can aren't being pulled towards the center by the rope. Centripetal force is the rope pulling the can towards the middle, like how the ground is constantly pushing you up, even though you stay still. If the can was filled with water, for example, the water isn't being pulled to the center by the rope like the can is. The water always wants to continue in a straight line, but it is being pulled into the center by the can (that is being pulled by the rope) it is in. As he said in the video, Centrifugal force is just the absence of centripetal force, not its own force. Unless you can name what is pulling the water outwards let me know. Otherwise, shut up and sit down.
      Edit: not trying to be mean, but you weren't nice so neither will I.

  • @commoncents1
    @commoncents1 5 років тому

    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.

  • @RealEverythingComputers
    @RealEverythingComputers Рік тому

    Many thanks. Great explanation!

  • @veluv9879
    @veluv9879 5 років тому

    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

  • @TuanNguyen-uq8gz
    @TuanNguyen-uq8gz 4 роки тому

    why do we ignore the centrifugal force when solving physics problems in class?

    • @carultch
      @carultch 3 роки тому

      Are you talking about the apparent centrifugal force of the Earth specifically? Or is there something else you had in mind?
      The answer for why we don't include it in the calculations of problems that take place on Earth, is that it is already embedded in the values for g that we look up in a handbook. The 9.8 N/kg already accounts for this, as a representative value of the global average. It does vary by +/- 0.3 N/kg as a function of geographical location, precisely because of the centrifugal effect, and secondarily, the bulging shape of the Earth that was originally caused by this effect.

  • @RolndoGalidoGuerzo
    @RolndoGalidoGuerzo 6 років тому

    0:30 Pulling the object towards the center of the circle? I don't think so. It is not pulling but stopping or preventing the object from fleeing because it only has that given length of string to hang on to. There's no force pulling it but only the limited length of the string stopping the ball from fleeing because of the Centrifugal force!

  • @evasuser
    @evasuser 6 років тому

    what about strings, g-strings and thongs, what's applicable in such cases?

  • @thethinker4164
    @thethinker4164 4 роки тому

    A great video . I got clear concept. Thank you sir.

  • @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time
    @Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time 2 роки тому

    Best explanation yet!!!

  • @JacobTJ1
    @JacobTJ1 3 роки тому

    super awesome explanation

  • @jarrod9234
    @jarrod9234 7 років тому +2

    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?

    • @noahway13
      @noahway13 4 роки тому +1

      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.

    • @Acidfunkish
      @Acidfunkish 3 роки тому +1

      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. 👍🏻

    • @mateocroom7644
      @mateocroom7644 3 роки тому +1

      @@Acidfunkish Thank you, this was very helpful

  • @calholli
    @calholli 3 роки тому

    It makes more sense if you think of the centrifugal force as a "potential energy-- rather than a real one.. Otherwise, this explanation seems incomplete. You can't just say that the centrifugal force is not real, because otherwise, how is it spinning at all if the centripetal force is the only real force? What do you call the initial force that starts the spinning? I understand that the centripetal force is what is keeping it from going in a straight line and making it turn-- and the centrifugal force is the potential energy waiting to be released if the centripetal connection was ever severed.... But what do you call that initial force that started all the movement in the first place?

  • @robertoanchundia681
    @robertoanchundia681 7 років тому +1

    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?

    • @arnesaknussemm2427
      @arnesaknussemm2427 3 роки тому

      Friction between the mud and the tyres surface provides the centripetal force in this example

  • @technotux7835
    @technotux7835 2 роки тому

    If one of the governors balls is heavier than the other, which ball will go higher?

  • @haroldwestrich3312
    @haroldwestrich3312 8 місяців тому +1

    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.

  • @ndamugobaivan1
    @ndamugobaivan1 3 роки тому

    Wow! What an explanation! Thank you for this insight.

  • @chrisk4690
    @chrisk4690 2 роки тому

    Correction: There is no “pull” in space. There is only push.

  • @F_L_U_X
    @F_L_U_X Рік тому

    if the can were to spin so fast that the rope snapped, that would be because of centrifugal force/failure, correct?

    • @eisenbergm
      @eisenbergm 28 днів тому

      No, it would the the centripetal force failing. Similar to the mud on the tire example, when the centripetal force fails, the can (or mud) would fly off tangentially to the axis of rotation

  • @gensyed
    @gensyed 4 роки тому +5

    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.

    • @tonylee590
      @tonylee590 2 роки тому

      I like your thoughts !

  • @bholenath5232
    @bholenath5232 4 роки тому +1

    The topic is as clear as vacuum

  • @ericerpelding686
    @ericerpelding686 3 роки тому

    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.

    • @OrangPasien
      @OrangPasien Рік тому

      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.

  • @Drew_Hurst
    @Drew_Hurst 6 років тому +1

    0:16 How is it's velocity constantly changing if, as is mentioned, the acceleration is constant?

    • @Drew_Hurst
      @Drew_Hurst 6 років тому

      lf acceleration is CONSTANT say 100 rpm the velocity must also be constant.
      It might be circular velocity but its stll constant and its always 100 times a minute so its not accelerating or decelerating.
      Why are you trying not to believe what you see to be true.
      Denying the tension on the string is the flaw here and if centripetal force is greater than centrifugal force we should see the string as being slack which it's not and is just nonsense and impossible.
      Also the distance of the spinning object from the centre would be random not constantly in the same circular arc.
      Yes, as it speeds up to 100rpm it's accelerating and the velocity is changing.
      As it slows down the acceleration and velocity are changing.
      The velocity can not be changing if and when it's acceleration is CONSTANT.
      It's not 99 rpm then 101 rpm it's 100 reveloutions per minute.
      Every Minute the acceleration and velocity are the same and an hour later its still 100 rpm so the acceleration and velocity are constant.
      If you dissagree you have been hoodwinked by scientific law brainwashing to help you believe more nonsense based on bad premises.
      Its easy to see (and feel and demonstrate) the obvious logical fact of a centrifugal force, but I see no evidence of centripetal force pulling towards the centre making the string slack, except maybe a bunch of unsubstantiated unprovable mumbo jumbo designed to make people believe centrifugal force is weaker than centripetal force when it isn't.
      What happens after the string is cut is irrelevant, especially when we are ignoring the real force on the string when it's intact.
      Explain how I go 60 km in an hour every time when I am traveling at a constant 60kph if my velocity is supposedly changing.
      According to your logic if I travel for an hour at 60 kmph daily I will arrive at a different place everyday!

    • @kefrenferrer6777
      @kefrenferrer6777 6 років тому +2

      Velocity has two components dirección and rapidity, if direction changes the mass is under aceleration.

    • @Alexander-qd7nj
      @Alexander-qd7nj 6 років тому +1

      There's no such thing as "circular velocity" . it's called speed.

    • @Mr.E.us.69
      @Mr.E.us.69 6 років тому +2

      The can on a string is always changing directions obviously. Since velocity is a vector force, velocity is always changing.

    • @digiboy123
      @digiboy123 Рік тому

      But if you go back, B4, you'll eventually end up going with dual a and v constants, with mn and fi as references. Sure will.

  • @bandaarisharath6673
    @bandaarisharath6673 3 роки тому

    For the fist time i have seen likes are more then subs...Great Man Tqq

  • @Monochromicornicopia
    @Monochromicornicopia 5 років тому +16

    Your video is wrong. Action-reaction pairs cannot act on the same object.

    • @yaswanthsai369
      @yaswanthsai369 4 місяці тому

      Then what about rocket

    • @amielrayyanb.badrudin3096
      @amielrayyanb.badrudin3096 3 місяці тому

      Explain

    • @yaswanthsai369
      @yaswanthsai369 3 місяці тому

      @@amielrayyanb.badrudin3096 in rocket weight acts downward and thrust from engine acts upward on same body, making it equilibrium when two forces are equal

    • @nomanjamraizabbasi1108
      @nomanjamraizabbasi1108 2 місяці тому

      ​@@yaswanthsai369 not true. Thrust
      Puts force on air which in turn pushes the rocket upwards. Here too the centripetal force is transferred through string to mass and centrifugal from mass to string so basically it's never on 1 object.

    • @jonasludvigsen7822
      @jonasludvigsen7822 Місяць тому +1

      ⁠@@nomanjamraizabbasi1108What about in space, there is no air the thrust can act upon?

  • @usamaverse
    @usamaverse 7 років тому +13

    So the term "centrifugal force" is real, it is actually the inertia, only NAMED Centrifugal Force, right? The force is not real, as it is not a force, but inertia. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    • @-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-
      @-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_-.-_- 6 років тому +3

      Usama Ali It is not a force, it is not real, if it was real, when you cut the string it wouldn’t move straight, but it does, that is a way to prove it isn’t real, it is just a kind of concept, to help you to understand, we tought it was real in the past, but we proved it isn’t
      Long story short: The centrifugal force isn’t real, only the centripetal force is

    • @Falkdr
      @Falkdr 6 років тому

      @usama ali
      you are right.

    • @Monochromicornicopia
      @Monochromicornicopia 5 років тому

      You got it. There's no such thing as a centrifugal "force"

  • @varshinilolla3090
    @varshinilolla3090 2 роки тому

    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.

  • @zenvir1680
    @zenvir1680 4 роки тому +1

    I think you can't draw centripetal and centrifugal forces in same diagram. Because centrifugal force is the same force as centripetal force viewed from object's POV.
    It is like the same force that pushes you to the back of seat in a suddenly accelerating car, a pseudo force.

  • @dandarte4062
    @dandarte4062 9 місяців тому

    I see no acceleration and would not detect a force pulling inwards, just outwards.

  • @TheInkPitOx
    @TheInkPitOx Рік тому +1

    So centripetal force is the inward force and centrifugal force is the outward force.

    • @solapowsj25
      @solapowsj25 Рік тому

      Yes, very true. Based on velocity v, centrifugal force is mv²/r where r is the radius. If the rope is cut, the can moves away in a straight line.

  • @phoenix21studios
    @phoenix21studios 4 роки тому

    misleading. there is no force pushing the can to the center but there is tension on the rope pulling the can away from the center.

  • @PauloVictor-wn5nn
    @PauloVictor-wn5nn 5 років тому

    Thanks for the video. Very helpful. Also, very well done video.

  • @e65666
    @e65666 6 років тому +2

    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

  • @paulmesler9412
    @paulmesler9412 5 років тому +2

    There is an
    error in your analysis. See the article in wikipedia on reactive centrifugal force. There is a centripetal force acting on the can, but remember Newton's Third Law. Forces always come in pairs. If there is a centriptal force acting on the can, there must be an equal and opposite force acting on another object in the opposite direction of the centripetal force. This is the reactive centrifugal force acting on the end of the string.

  • @recurrencetheorem4264
    @recurrencetheorem4264 Рік тому

    From an outside reference frame:
    Action: Rope pulls on can toward center,
    Reaction: Can pulls rope away from center.
    CF is NOT the reaction.

  • @osmangunes1094
    @osmangunes1094 5 років тому +1

    I think your tire mud example is totally wrong.. It says "as the rotational velocity increases, centripetal force will not be enough to hold the mud on the tire" But as the velocity increases centripetal force will also increase exponentially according to "F=mv2/r". This is wrong because it is not the centripetal force that holds the mud on the tire. It's the friction force. If it was centripetal force, the mud was supposed to fall off when the tire stops!! Centripetal force is a circumstational force. The mass must be tied to the center, either by gravitation or by a rope, etc. Once this attachment is cancelled (cut out or exceeded its maximum tension strength), so is the centripetal force

    • @gensyed
      @gensyed 4 роки тому +1

      good one!

  • @phantomm324
    @phantomm324 3 роки тому

    Wrong explanation in the video.....the centrifugal force is not the reaction force of centripetal force, its a kind of pseudo force which appears due to non inertial frame.

  • @digitalbroadcaster
    @digitalbroadcaster 4 роки тому +1

    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)

  • @izzyreel6730
    @izzyreel6730 2 роки тому +1

    Great explanation. Already planning to borrow some of the presentation the next time I’m facing a flerfer.

  • @viridian.vertigo
    @viridian.vertigo 5 років тому

    So is does a gravitron use centripetal or centrifugal force?

  • @jchrg2336
    @jchrg2336 4 роки тому +1

    1 atmosphere, it's more like a feeling thing try it in combination with the centrifugal and as well as your cetripital force..if a new born can come in to this world and starts screaming when the 1atmosphere impacts it's longs, it will be nice if the engine just needs one start up and never to be put out again, and the only fuel you would need to run it would be the 1 atmosphere...

    • @TGUlricksen
      @TGUlricksen 4 роки тому

      I like your idea. Also a silver cord to top it off...just kidding

    • @jchrg2336
      @jchrg2336 4 роки тому

      The golden ruler and the golden era..

    • @TGUlricksen
      @TGUlricksen 4 роки тому

      @UCNWWDbPTwD1GH7EcWfs3noQ Why so Sirius?

  • @univuniveral9713
    @univuniveral9713 5 років тому

    nice vid. Please can you tell me which software tool you used to draw and animate?

  • @Peter-qj7yn
    @Peter-qj7yn 3 роки тому +1

    omg centri-fugal, center-fleeing! that's awesome! i had never realized the etimology. i feel so dumb lol

  • @ashiquejabir6950
    @ashiquejabir6950 7 років тому +16

    His Concept of Centrifugal force being the reaction force is flawed(2:25), Since both the action reaction pair cannot act on a single body.

    • @franksmith9027
      @franksmith9027 7 років тому +1

      But they don't act on a single body.

    • @jamaluddin9158
      @jamaluddin9158 7 років тому +1

      Yes they are not action reaction pairs! The centripetal force and the force exerted on the pivot are action reaction pairs. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force and is the force that 'appears' to act in an accelerating frame of reference.

    • @TarunKumar-er8qq
      @TarunKumar-er8qq 6 років тому

      You are correct Mr. Jabir but while we perform a solution we apply equation of motion of force using force acting on single body....☺☺

    • @brindadeepak8282
      @brindadeepak8282 6 років тому

      They are acting on 2 objects
      i.e the can and insect

    • @Monochromicornicopia
      @Monochromicornicopia 5 років тому

      That's exactly what I was going to say

  • @omadhyaru7765
    @omadhyaru7765 7 років тому

    Superb... Superb...Superb

  • @choosers5177
    @choosers5177 Рік тому

    This needs to be updated similar to newton gravity laws

  • @josebriceno1707
    @josebriceno1707 7 років тому

    4:12 centrifugal force is not a force since it acts with the objects inersia, no object no centrifugal push, no cetrifugal push no centrifugal force

  • @tabishalirather8091
    @tabishalirather8091 5 років тому

    Action reaction pair theory given here is false.
    An object is undergoing circular motion, and if now centrifugal and centripetal forces act on it, it should move in a straight line perpendicular to the radius because according to you centrifugal force is equal to the centripetal in magnitude but opposite in direction, therefore they should simply cancel out and thus net force on the object should be zero?

  • @rickdelagarza4ever
    @rickdelagarza4ever 6 років тому

    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.

  • @LukeMahan-xr4xx
    @LukeMahan-xr4xx 5 років тому

    Great explanation, thank you

  • @theokingshango
    @theokingshango 2 роки тому

    Im no physicist but the string is tight because of centrifugal force🤔
    and if centripetal is weaker than tangential velocity (needing a string to hold a can)
    how does that explain moon orbiting without a string?!?! Wiki doesnt help either...

  • @RokaGamestudio
    @RokaGamestudio 5 років тому +2

    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...

    • @RokaGamestudio
      @RokaGamestudio 5 років тому

      @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.

  • @ridethebarfpony
    @ridethebarfpony 3 роки тому

    Ah yes, the classic canned wasp explanation

  • @themudpit621
    @themudpit621 7 років тому

    Excellent video!

  • @tomylim6022
    @tomylim6022 6 років тому

    FREAKING AWESOME VIDEO!!!!!!! thanks :)

  • @CycleEnder
    @CycleEnder Рік тому

    There is some misinformation in the video. Primarily, one where you state that centrifugal force is the reaction force of the centripetal force. This is absolutely wrong as action-reaction pairs act on different bodies.
    Secondly, centrifugal force is a fictitious force which implies that it depends on the frame of reference to explain and not violate newtons laws

  • @fetB
    @fetB Рік тому

    4:20 funny, others say centripetal is pseudo. Is there even consensus. Besides, nobody even knows what force is, so how can one be not a "real force"

  • @haroldwestrich3312
    @haroldwestrich3312 8 місяців тому +1

    DESCRIBING centripetal force - most people do not mention INERTIA but the truth is : the centripetal force is a force that DEFLECTS the INERTIA of a MOVING object. Explanation; If the object is not moving (has no relative motion to the source of the centripetal force) " THERE CAN BE NO sustained CENTRIPETAL force. ALSO: without centripetal force - we can not measure nor feel a centrifugal "(FEELING)". I would describe Centrifugal force as "the inertia of a moving object trying to remain in a straight line, when resisted by a centripetal force. NOTE: if a centripetal force is not present - nor is a "Centrifugal Force". I know all of this because I just created a new type of fluid pump. I am, considering, calling it an "ANGULAR INERTIA PUMP" It is mostly just a new more accurate name but has a couple of features that relocate and greatly reduce the centripetal forces to allow easier rotation of the impeller.

    • @haroldwestrich3312
      @haroldwestrich3312 8 місяців тому

      the only reason we "FEEL" centrifugal forces - is that the centripetal forces are not smooth and evenly distributed on our bodies (here on earth). when you are in space, orbiting the earth, you will not "FEEL" the centripetal forces nor the centrifugal force because the centripetal force is evenly distributed throughout your body and space suit and everything you touch, there is no way to "Feel" the difference between the centripetal force and the INERTIAL force trying to keep you moving in a straight line. ....EXAMPLE: when on a merry go round; the inertial forces, trying to keep you moving in a straight line are evenly distributed in your body but the CENTRIPETAL forces are only provided by your HANDS holding the handles and your feet's friction on the floor.

  • @DaBurntToaster
    @DaBurntToaster 8 років тому

    why does everyone explain centripetal force as a force of the object in question? (the can)
    if the can had centripetal force, it would be sucked into where the ball is, the can has inertia, the ball has whatever force is the force that keeps an object stationary, I want to say friction, but I 99.9% sure thats wrong, you get what im saying though.
    and then the string has centripetal force pulling the can toward the ball, its a passive force that comes from the balls inability to move, and the cans continued energy moving horizontally relative to the ball
    the passive centripetal force is always the exact force required to keep the can from continuing straight (until the force required exceeds the limits of the rope) and so the can remains at a fixed distance from the ball traveling in a circle around it.
    how does the can have centripetal force?

    • @DamianReloaded
      @DamianReloaded 8 років тому

      The centripetal force is the force holding the can connected to the ball through the string. It's not just the can having centripetal force, but a centripetal force applied _to_ the can by the ball through the string.

    • @persona9917
      @persona9917 8 років тому +1

      The problem is people mistake centripetal force with centrifugal. Centripetal force cannot be seen but can be observed in the way objects interact. In the video you can see it has the string but in the case of earth going around the sun it is not a string but a force. Its true just like the can earth is moving do to the inertia if you were to stop or cut the centripetal force from earth we would fly into space and be a rogue planet earth. Centrifugal is not a real force but a simple reaction of the centripetal force times gravity and velocity

  • @tehansiriwardana4950
    @tehansiriwardana4950 6 років тому +7

    this idea is wrong because an action and a reaction can not act upon the same object

    • @alh3328
      @alh3328 5 років тому

      Tension in rope pulls can towards center. Reaction force is can pulling on rope. That’s the idea he is trying to show.
      O

    • @digiboy123
      @digiboy123 Рік тому

      If I'm right then I am NOT wrong! 4real. COFILOSIRUS? Haven't seen that yet, but I might be wrong, 2.

  • @gurindermullanpur1135
    @gurindermullanpur1135 7 років тому

    centripetal, centrifugal forces cancel each other so why object moves in circular motion

    • @franksmith9027
      @franksmith9027 7 років тому

      Because the forces act on different masses.

  • @RobertStuart-mo4zi
    @RobertStuart-mo4zi 9 місяців тому +1

    A better explanation is available at
    www.youtube.com/@Gravitation_Gravitivity
    😛

    • @DrDeuteron
      @DrDeuteron 5 місяців тому

      this is the engineer's version. No need to mix ppl up with metric tensors.

  • @benmiller6369
    @benmiller6369 2 роки тому

    The word "Force/Forces" is said exactly 50 times in this video.

  • @sethuramps1709
    @sethuramps1709 6 років тому

    thank you for giving me good explanation

  • @milind62
    @milind62 2 місяці тому

    You did not expkain centrifugal force properly. It would confuse

  • @SuryaPrakash-zg8jt
    @SuryaPrakash-zg8jt 5 років тому

    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.