Agreed, it's the highs and lows / emphasis on the words. These are pretty good, thank you. I prefer to content slowly revealed rather than it all at once though =|. That was a little overwhelming
@@saketsharma827can you help me please? In the video he goes from a(t^2)/2=d(1)-d(0)=wv(t^2). I tried to do the same idea for the difference in velocities, at=v(1)-v(2)=w(r(1)-r(0))=wvt. The proportions are the same but the constant at the start is different, what’s wrong with my logic
I have a question. In the end of the video you show that the deflection will be to the right of the target as seen from the throwers perspective. if you're shooting from the outer disk to a place that's closer to the center, will the ball also deflect to the right of the target?
Dear Sir, Very Nice explanation. However, in the definition of Coriolis acceleration, you wrote "acceleration that causes this force". Should it be "acceleration caused due to this force" ? Because what I know is force causes acceleration of a body and not the other way around. Please let me know if I am missing something here. Thanks a ton.
+Sakti Prasad Dhar Coriolis force is a fictious force that is derived or "perceived" as there is a force. As a result of an coriolis acceleration viewed in the rotating system, it SEEMS there is such force, but in reality nobody acts such force on it. Therefore, it is "acceleartion that CAUSES the force", not caused by.
There is something about the Coriolis Force that bothers me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. The Earth and its atmosphere tend to rotate together...the earth being a solid ball and the atmosphere being a thin, sticky Jello that clings to the solid ball due to gravity. The solid ball that is the earth, does NOT rotate within an atmosphere that is stationary relative to the fixed starfield which surrounds our planet. If this were the case, winds at the earth's surface would be way too strong to support life. However, in our current Coriolis model, when a convection current moves a small parcel of air within that Jello in a northerly or southerly direction, it appears that we detach that parcel from the rest of the atmosphere and trace out its path relative to the fixed star field around earth; but then wouldn't that mean that the people on the earth's surface who are standing at the parcel's "target" latitude feel a wind that has a magnitude equivalent to VTarget - VSource? It seems that a slightly more accurate model of the air parcel's motion would involve treating the air parcel like a gum drop stuck on a radial arm extending from the center of the earth to the earth's surface. This radial arm and the gum drop positioned at the tip of the radial arm at the earth's surface would (in static conditions) move with the rotation of the earth but then experience a torque if there was any change to the angular momentum of the gum drop brought about by north to south movement. Although there appear to be some correct ideas behind the current model of the Coriolis Force, I cannot help but feel that the current model was conceived in a time when many people were still fighting off the idea that the earth was flat and this has left the current model with some gaps that need to be addressed.
In y axis it possess zero velocity and in y axis if we apply equation of motion then displacement will be d=0t+1/2at², in this way we can find a which is coriolis acceleration, and this acceleration is with respect to rotational frame Pt 1. if we see from inertial frame it posses a velocity same as pt 1 in y axis
Andrey, Again a wonderful and most simplistic derivation of Coriolis force and acceleration. Another question, since Coriolis force is mostly used in Gyroscopes, do you have a video lecture for the same? Thanks
can you help me please? In the video you go a(t^2)/2=d(1)-d(0)=wv(t^2). I tried to do the same idea for the difference in velocities, at=v(1)-v(0)=w(r(1)-r(0))=wvt. The proportions are the same but the constant at the start is different, what’s wrong with my logic
Nice ²....... But what would happen if the ball wasn't in contact with the person standing on the rotating frame at all and it just moved simply towards the right?
Think of watching people on a merry go round tossing a ball to each other. If you are not on the ride you don't feel anything. Jump on the ride and then you feel it. If you were above it the ball would appear to travel in a straight line. To the people on it its a curved path. You could even roll the ball to your self (would look like a trick) but in reality the ball would move in a straight line when viewed from above.
This explanation is confusing because it comes across as the force of rolling the ball is constant and no different than releasing the ball to inertia. Also, isn’t the change of the rate of speed higher = acceleration and the change lower = deacceleration? Now, I can understand the circumferential speed at radius 1 is slower than radius 2. And, how is 2 derived in the first equation? From the circumference equation? (2pi*r) Essentially, it appears that because radius x is the same as radius y then it becomes 2r and pi=C/2r
What happened to conservation of angular momentum? The so called Coriolis effect is caused due to conservation of angular momentum. Objects further from Earth's spin axis when moving to location of lesser radius will spin faster and object at lesser radius to further radius will spin slower as compared to the Earth's spin. If any object maintains the same radius to the Earth's spin axis while in motion, no deviation of motion will occur.
I understnd the concept but Is this not cetrifugal force? If centrifugal force worked the same on our planet as on a rotating platform surely we would be flung off the earth (esp considering the speed of 1600km/h)
It is a conscience decision to talk like that. Why would you possibly decide to ruin your video by speaking in such an insufferable manor? I can't watch it.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I cant believe that I am looking at a human... The voice is like that of a phone-answering machine =))
Well thats a first ;)
Agreed, it's the highs and lows / emphasis on the words. These are pretty good, thank you. I prefer to content slowly revealed rather than it all at once though =|. That was a little overwhelming
Didn't get the last part about d = 1/2 at^2.
+Stephen Rayner s=ut+1/2at^2
Very nice explanation. However, I think you should explain the usage of d = 1/2 at^2 and how we are able to remove the vt term.
(vt)ωt = v×t× ω×t = vωt² = ½at² (from equation of motion)
a = 2ωv
@@saketsharma827can you help me please? In the video he goes from a(t^2)/2=d(1)-d(0)=wv(t^2). I tried to do the same idea for the difference in velocities, at=v(1)-v(2)=w(r(1)-r(0))=wvt. The proportions are the same but the constant at the start is different, what’s wrong with my logic
This was brilliant! Thank you so much!
cooldude 4172 You're welcome! :)
If v2 is greater than v1, how does the ball deflect towards the left ahead of Point 2? It should deflect towards the right of Point 2.
Excellent explanation. Thanks
Great video, ideas explained very well and easy to follow. Thank you.
I have a question. In the end of the video you show that the deflection will be to the right of the target as seen from the throwers perspective. if you're shooting from the outer disk to a place that's closer to the center, will the ball also deflect to the right of the target?
you sir are a GOD !! thanks for the explanation
Dear Sir,
Very Nice explanation. However, in the definition of Coriolis acceleration, you wrote "acceleration that causes this force". Should it be "acceleration caused due to this force" ? Because what I know is force causes acceleration of a body and not the other way around. Please let me know if I am missing something here.
Thanks a ton.
+Sakti Prasad Dhar Coriolis force is a fictious force that is derived or "perceived" as there is a force. As a result of an coriolis acceleration viewed in the rotating system, it SEEMS there is such force, but in reality nobody acts such force on it. Therefore, it is "acceleartion that CAUSES the force", not caused by.
Thank you sir ..amazing video 🙌
Clear explanation Sir. Can u derive the same for an object travelling in the rotating earth?
Man speaks in italics lol. Great video of course
There is something about the Coriolis Force that bothers me, and I can't quite put my finger on it. The Earth and its atmosphere tend to rotate together...the earth being a solid ball and the atmosphere being a thin, sticky Jello that clings to the solid ball due to gravity. The solid ball that is the earth, does NOT rotate within an atmosphere that is stationary relative to the fixed starfield which surrounds our planet. If this were the case, winds at the earth's surface would be way too strong to support life. However, in our current Coriolis model, when a convection current moves a small parcel of air within that Jello in a northerly or southerly direction, it appears that we detach that parcel from the rest of the atmosphere and trace out its path relative to the fixed star field around earth; but then wouldn't that mean that the people on the earth's surface who are standing at the parcel's "target" latitude feel a wind that has a magnitude equivalent to VTarget - VSource? It seems that a slightly more accurate model of the air parcel's motion would involve treating the air parcel like a gum drop stuck on a radial arm extending from the center of the earth to the earth's surface. This radial arm and the gum drop positioned at the tip of the radial arm at the earth's surface would (in static conditions) move with the rotation of the earth but then experience a torque if there was any change to the angular momentum of the gum drop brought about by north to south movement. Although there appear to be some correct ideas behind the current model of the Coriolis Force, I cannot help but feel that the current model was conceived in a time when many people were still fighting off the idea that the earth was flat and this has left the current model with some gaps that need to be addressed.
Hello I have a question for you
Why d= 1/2at^2 ? I don't understand
Because there is a kinematics equation that says: d = V0t + 1/2at^2. It has initial velocity equals zero (V0 = 0), so d = 1/2at^2.
In y axis it possess zero velocity and in y axis if we apply equation of motion then displacement will be d=0t+1/2at², in this way we can find a which is coriolis acceleration, and this acceleration is with respect to rotational frame Pt 1. if we see from inertial frame it posses a velocity same as pt 1 in y axis
Andrey,
Again a wonderful and most simplistic derivation of Coriolis force and acceleration. Another question, since Coriolis force is mostly used in Gyroscopes, do you have a video lecture for the same?
Thanks
Thanks! No I do not have a lecture on gyroscopes! Sorry : /
can you help me please? In the video you go a(t^2)/2=d(1)-d(0)=wv(t^2). I tried to do the same idea for the difference in velocities, at=v(1)-v(0)=w(r(1)-r(0))=wvt. The proportions are the same but the constant at the start is different, what’s wrong with my logic
good one......can you explain how the the direction of coriolis acceleration be found?
Nice ².......
But what would happen if the ball wasn't in contact with the person standing on the rotating frame at all and it just moved simply towards the right?
moirangthem sanahal I came here for the same question
moirangthem sanahal as the winds above are not in contact with earth
Then you can simply set r_1 = 0 and therefore v_1 = 0 and everything still works out.
I have a question. Who observes this acceleration to exist? The outside observer or a person on the rotating frame?
It's observed within the rotating reference frame.
Think of watching people on a merry go round tossing a ball to each other. If you are not on the ride you don't feel anything. Jump on the ride and then you feel it.
If you were above it the ball would appear to travel in a straight line. To the people on it its a curved path. You could even roll the ball to your self (would look like a trick) but in reality the ball would move in a straight line when viewed from above.
This explanation is confusing because it comes across as the force of rolling the ball is constant and no different than releasing the ball to inertia.
Also, isn’t the change of the rate of speed higher = acceleration and the change lower = deacceleration?
Now, I can understand the circumferential speed at radius 1 is slower than radius 2.
And, how is 2 derived in the first equation? From the circumference equation? (2pi*r)
Essentially, it appears that because radius x is the same as radius y then it becomes 2r and pi=C/2r
Brilliant. Thanks.
how we assume that the acceleration is constant ????
Hello can you explain how to make cross product depending on direction?
What happened to conservation of angular momentum? The so called Coriolis effect is caused due to conservation of angular momentum. Objects further from Earth's spin axis when moving to location of lesser radius will spin faster and object at lesser radius to further radius will spin slower as compared to the Earth's spin. If any object maintains the same radius to the Earth's spin axis while in motion, no deviation of motion will occur.
thank you so much, btw what's ur accent ? its funny, lol
I understnd the concept but Is this not cetrifugal force? If centrifugal force worked the same on our planet as on a rotating platform surely we would be flung off the earth (esp considering the speed of 1600km/h)
Thank you, sir
Thanks
Perfect
A photo of that board would have been sufficient.He wasted his effort in explaining.
At 8:33 you can see full board. Explanation is for those who want or need it. Video with just board photo is not as good for some
Why the hell you gotta talk like that?
It is a conscience decision to talk like that. Why would you possibly decide to ruin your video by speaking in such an insufferable manor? I can't watch it.
Its called an accent dimwit.