Tomtam said:
I followed methods from Classical Mechanics 3rd , Goldstein poole & Safko . page 47. Thank for your suggestion.
OK. This is interesting. I'm an old-timer who used the first edition of Goldstein where the formalism is developed differently in the section on Lagrange's equations with constraints. In the first edition it is assumed that the constraints can be put into the form of equation (1) of the link that I gave in post #2. Then Goldstein derives essentially equation (3) of the link. (You can set the nonconservative forces ##\left(F_{q_k} \right)_{nc}## equal to zero in your problem.) Note that this equation does not involve time derivatives of the λ's. Unfortunately (3) is not derived in the third edition.
In the 3rd edition, it appears that they are considering more general constraint equations that cannot necessarily be put into the form of equation (1) of the link. They then derive more complicated equations of motion that involve time derivatives of the λ's.
I'm a little surprised that the 3rd edition does not contain the simpler equation (3) of the link for constraints of the form (1). In both editions of Goldstein, there is an example of a hoop rolling down an inclined plane. This example is word-for-word the same in both editions.
Can you follow that example based on the formalism in the 3rd edition? It appears to me that in both editions the solution uses the formalism of the 1st edition, where use is made of equation (3) of the link. So, I would think a student would have a hard time following this example in the 3rd edition. Maybe I'm overlooking something obvious whereby equation (3) is easily obtained from the equations of motion as presented in the 3rd edition of Goldstein. But I don't see it off-hand.
[EDIT: For the hoop example, the constraint equation ##r d\theta = dx## can be integrated and arranged as ##r \theta - x +C = 0##, where ##C## is a constant of integration. Then you can easily use the formalism of the 3rd edition with this integrated equation as the constraint. But, the solution in the 3rd edition does not mention this. It sticks with the differential form ##r d\theta = dx## and uses the equivalent of equation (3) of the link. In your problem, the differential form of the constraints would be ##R d\theta \cos \psi = dx## and ##R d\theta \sin \psi = dy##, which are not integrable. But the formalism of the 1st edition (or the link) can be used.]
Anyway, your problem seems to me to be much easier if you use the formalism of the 1st edition (i.e., equations (1) and (3)) of the link.