Angular Momentum Term Equals Zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a classical mechanics problem involving angular momentum in a system with two masses, one hanging and one on a table. The participant is trying to understand why a specific term, involving sin(2θ), is set to zero in the angular momentum equation. They derive the angular momentum vector but are confused about the implications of the term being zero, questioning whether it relates to the fixed radius or the effects of gravity on the hanging mass. Another contributor points out an error in the participant's derivation and suggests using polar coordinates for clarity. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly applying trigonometric identities in angular momentum calculations.
KleZMeR
Messages
125
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

This is from a classical mechanics problem, and I already 'solved' the problem, but I'm interested in why a certain term is set to zero. I think I understand the concept but just want to clarify.

The problem is a table with a hole in it and two masses on a string, one mass is hanging through the hole with only a Z component, and the other is on the table with an X and Y component (Z plane).


When I take the cross product of R x mV, I get the angular momentum vector K which has only a 'vertical' component:
R x mV = [m*(r^2)*dθ + m*r*dr*sin(2θ)] K


But I am told that:
R x mV = m*(r^2)*dθ K


The sin(2θ) came from some trig identity work. So I am wondering is this because there is no effect on the K vector from a sin(2θ) factor which is only in the Z plane? Why is this term 0? Is dr = 0 ? I think r is fixed but the problem does say that gravity affects the hanging mass, so perhaps dr in the Z plane is not zero? Any help understanding this is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is an error in your derivation of equation for angular momentum. Without seeing the derivation, I cannot say what this error is. A simple, if somewhat cumbersome/ way to obtain the angular momentum in polar coordinates is by writing ## x = r \cos \theta, \ y = r \sin \theta ##, then writing ## \dot x = ..., \ \dot y = ... ## and taking their cross product.
 
Here is my attempt, I uploaded it
 

Attachments

  • angularmomentumattempt.jpg
    angularmomentumattempt.jpg
    62.1 KB · Views: 540
So you have ## mr [\dot r \cos \theta \sin \theta + ... - \dot r \sin \theta \cos \theta + ... ] ## yet you write ## = mr [ ... + 2\dot r \cos \theta \sin \theta] ##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top