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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Back
Top