About lagrange dynamics of aparticle

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter marxist_ad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamics Lagrange
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Lagrange dynamics to a particle under constraints. Participants explore why generalized forces in Lagrange's equations do not explicitly include constraint forces when the particle conforms to these constraints.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why constraint forces are not included in the generalized forces when applying Lagrange's equations to a particle under constraints.
  • Another participant explains that for holonomic constraints, the number of independent generalized coordinates is reduced by the number of constraints, implying that constraint forces are accounted for implicitly.
  • A further inquiry is made about how to determine whether constraints are included explicitly or implicitly in the equations.
  • An example is provided involving a frictionless bead on a wire, illustrating that the normal reaction force acts as a constraint force but is not needed in the equations due to the nature of the problem.
  • It is noted that only one independent generalized coordinate is necessary in the example, as the constraint (constant radius) inherently accounts for the normal reaction force.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to share an understanding of the implicit nature of constraint forces in Lagrange's equations, but there is no consensus on the clarity of this concept or how to determine the inclusion of constraints in various scenarios.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the nuances of how constraints are treated in different contexts, nor does it clarify the conditions under which constraints may be considered explicit or implicit.

marxist_ad
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
hi all ,

i am new at this forum , so i don't exactly know the rules about the topics and their sorting
i am self studying lagrange dynamics.
so my question is : when writing lagrange equations for aparticle ,& the particle
is in conformity with the constraints ; why the generalized forces
arenot containing the constraint forces ?
thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you asking why the forces of constraint are not there in the equations explicitly?

Remember that for holonomic constraints, the number of independent generalized co-ordinates in the Lagrange's equation is less by the number of constraints from the actual number of co-ordinates. The equations contain the forces of constraint implicitly.
 
Last edited:
Shooting Star said:
Are you asking why the forces of constraint are not there in the equations explicitly?

Remember that for holonomic constraints, the number of independent generalized co-ordinates in the Lagrange's equation is less by the number of constraints from the actual number of co-ordinates. The equations contain the forces of constraint implicitly.
how do i know that equations contain constraints explicity or implicity?

my question in other words :

why the constraint forces arenot included in the generalized forces resulted from applying lagrange equations on aparticle is in conformity with the constraints ?
 
marxist_ad said:
my question in other words :

why the constraint forces arenot included in the generalized forces resulted from applying lagrange equations on aparticle is in conformity with the constraints ?

The whole technique of the Lagrangian treatment was developed so as to eliminate our calculating the forces of constraint.

Consider a simple example: a frictionless bead is moving on a frictionless wire in a plane in absence of gravity. The force of constraint would be the normal reaction of the wire directed radially inward, which would be equal to the centripetal force. That's how you would solve it to get the equations of motion, and show that it is moving with uniform linear and angular speed.

Now, why don't you do this very simple problem using Lagrange's equation yourself? You'll get a feel of what's happening.

Note that only one independent generalized co-ordinate theta is required. The fact that r is a constant, (or sqrt(x^2+y^2)) takes care of the normal reaction. The physical force of constraint, viz. the normal reaction, is equivalent to the equation r=constant.
 
Shooting Star said:
The whole technique of the Lagrangian treatment was developed so as to eliminate our calculating the forces of constraint.

Consider a simple example: a frictionless bead is moving on a frictionless wire in a plane in absence of gravity. The force of constraint would be the normal reaction of the wire directed radially inward, which would be equal to the centripetal force. That's how you would solve it to get the equations of motion, and show that it is moving with uniform linear and angular speed.

Now, why don't you do this very simple problem using Lagrange's equation yourself? You'll get a feel of what's happening.

Note that only one independent generalized co-ordinate theta is required. The fact that r is a constant, (or sqrt(x^2+y^2)) takes care of the normal reaction. The physical force of constraint, viz. the normal reaction, is equivalent to the equation r=constant.
thanks , you are the man .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
10K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
528
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K