B Alternative Kinetic Energy Formulation and Goldstein's Problem 11

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the application of alternative kinetic energy formulations in solving Goldstein's Problem 11, which involves a rolling disc. The original kinetic energy formulation leads to expected equations of motion, while an alternative formulation introduces complications due to its dependence on the angle of the disc. The user suspects that the issue arises from the non-independence of virtual displacements when both position and orientation are considered in the kinetic energy expression. They conclude that both variables must be accounted for to derive accurate equations of motion. Overall, the discussion highlights the importance of correctly formulating kinetic energy in relation to the system's constraints.
Fedor Indutny
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!

I have a (supposedly) calculus problem that I just can't seem to figure out. Basically, I'm trying to understand why alternative kinetic energy formulation does not yield the same equations of motion in problem 11 of Goldstein's Classic Mechanics 3 edition.

The text of problem is following:

Consider a uniform disc that rolls without slipping on a horizontal plane. A horizontal force is applied to the center of the disc and in a direction parallel to the plane of the disk.

(a) Derive Lagrange's equations and find the generalized force
(b) ...doesn't matter for this question...

I have solved the problem for kinetic energy T = m * (v_x^2 + v_y^2) / 2, and indeed the equations of motions become d/dt(m * v_x) = Q_x, where Q_x is a generalized force. Nothing unexpected here.

However, if I formulate kinetic energy as T = m * (v_x/cos(theta))^2 / 2, everything in the equation seems to change with the additional dependence on theta (the angle of disc orientation on the xy plane).

Is there anything wrong with using this alternative kinetic energy formulation (except that it blows up on theta = pi/2)?

Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps, the reason why it does not work is that partial derivative ∂theta/∂(v_x) is not 0. Is it a right guess?
 
Oh, I think I figured it out. The virtual displacements ∂q_i are not independent in these coordinates, therefore if my T depends on both x and θ, I have to take both in account to create an equation of motion.

Please let me know if any these comments are correct :)
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top