Bar hanging from two springs with unequal masses

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Diracobama2181
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Springs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a system consisting of two different masses attached to separate springs via a massless rod. Participants explore the formulation of the Lagrangian for this system, considering its constraints and degrees of freedom. The conversation includes aspects of kinematics, energy expressions, and the application of the parallel axis theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial setup for the Lagrangian, including expressions for kinetic and potential energy, but questions the correctness of their approach.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on whether the problem is treated in two dimensions and the number of degrees of freedom involved.
  • A participant suggests using a coordinate system based on the center of mass and identifies three degrees of freedom, including an angular component.
  • Concerns are raised about the need to address kinematics before progressing to dynamics, emphasizing the importance of expressing positions in terms of generalized coordinates.
  • One participant rethinks their approach and proposes using coordinates of the center of the rod to simplify the kinetic energy expression, while also addressing potential energy in equilibrium.
  • Corrections are made regarding the moment of inertia, with one participant stating that the parallel axis theorem is unnecessary, while another counters that it is indeed required due to the massless nature of the rod.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of the parallel axis theorem and the correct approach to defining the moment of inertia. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal method for deriving the Lagrangian and the implications of kinematic considerations.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note potential confusion regarding the definitions of coordinates and the implications of constraints on the system's degrees of freedom. There is also uncertainty about the correct treatment of energy expressions and the application of the parallel axis theorem.

Diracobama2181
Messages
70
Reaction score
3
Suppose we have two different masses, m1m1 and m2m2 with each at the end of a massless rod of length ll, with each mass being attached to a separate spring of constant k such that both springs stem from the same point on the ceiling? What would be the Lagrangian of this system. I have tried several different approaches, but none seem to be quite right.
What I got thus far, r1=(x1,y1)(coordinate of the first mass) r2=(x2,y2) (coordinate of the second mass)
So T=(1/2)m1T=(1/2)m1((x˙1)^2+(y˙1)^2)+(1/2)m2((x˙2)^2+(y˙2)^2)
U=-mgy1-mgy2+(1/2)k((x1)^2+(y1)^2)+(1/2)k((x2)^2+(y2)^2).
From here, I get L=T-V. Is there any issues with my setup?
 

Attachments

  • 20190812_140232.jpg
    20190812_140232.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 373
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello DIrac, :welcome: !

For this kind of problem we have an introductory physics homework forum with a decent template -- please use it.

And try ##\LaTeX## to make your expressions legible. If not, at least ue the sub/superscript buttons under ...
1565639088769.png


Questions to you:

You don't specify it's a 2D problem, but from your expressions it appears you do treat it as such, right ? Is it 2D ?

How many degrees of freedom are there (considering the constraint) ? So how many generalized coordinates ?
Diracobama2181 said:
From here, I get L=T-V.
I don't see the logic. Do you mean With L = T-U I would get the following expression ... ?

What is you zero point for U ?
 
Yes, it is constrained to two dimensions. The problem itself seems to be a variation on a Goldstein problem. In that problem, a coordinate system can be taken with respect to the center of mass. The problem has three degrees of freedom, the center of mass of the bar in the ##x## and ##y## directions as well as an angular component about the center of mass. ##L=T-U## is the Lagrangian. I was thinking I could instead use coordinates about the center of mass, so T=##(1/2)(m_1+m_2)((\dot x)^2+(\dot y)^2)+(1/2)I(\dot \theta)^2##. However, now I seem to have trouble finding the extensions on the springs.
 
Yes, it seems to go messy.
Perhaps try a simpler case first (identical masses & springs)

1565693508494.png


[edit] are you looking for the full langrangian or one for small deviations from equilibrium ?

[edit]@haruspex : any suggestions ?
 
Last edited:
Diracobama2181 said:
Yes, it is constrained to two dimensions. The problem itself seems to be a variation on a Goldstein problem. In that problem, a coordinate system can be taken with respect to the center of mass. The problem has three degrees of freedom, the center of mass of the bar in the xx and yy directions as well as an angular component about the center of mass. L=T−UL=T-U is the Lagrangian. I was thinking I could instead use coordinates about the center of mass, so T=(1/2)(m1+m2)((˙x)2+(˙y)2)+(1/2)I(˙θ)2(1/2)(m_1+m_2)((\dot x)^2+(\dot y)^2)+(1/2)I(\dot \theta)^2. However, now I seem to have trouble finding the extensions on the springs.

As is so often the case, you have leaped into the dynamics without paying adequate attention to the kinematics. Until you figure out how to express the positions of the masses in terms of your generalized coordinates, you will not make any progress. Ask yourself first, what are x, y, and theta? Secondly, how is the position of the first mass expressed in terms of these?

Over the years, I've seen countless students stumble on this very issue, the failure to address the kinematics. It is absolutely essential!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Rethought the problem and decided to use coordinates of the center of the rod. That way, the kinetic energy will be the translational kinetic energy plus the energy of rotation about the center.

Thus, setting ##m=m_1+m_2##
##K=(1/2)m(\dot x)^2+(1/2)m(\dot y)^2+(1/2)I(\dot\theta)^2##
where ##I=I_{cm}+md^2##
and ##d=(l/2) \frac {m_1-m_2} {m_1+m_2}##
Then, assuming the system is initially in equilibrium,

##U=(1/2)k( ((x+(l/2)sin \theta )^2+(y+(l/2)sin \theta)^2))+((x-(l/2)cos \theta)^2+(y-(l/2)sin \theta)^2)##

From here, I can find the Lagrangian.
 
Diracobama2181 said:
Rethought the problem and decided to use coordinates of the center of the rod. That way, the kinetic energy will be the translational kinetic energy plus the energy of rotation about the center.

Thus, setting ##m=m_1+m_2##
##K=(1/2)m(\dot x)^2+(1/2)m(\dot y)^2+(1/2)I(\dot\theta)^2##
where ##I=I_{cm}+md^2##
and ##d=(l/2) \frac {m_1-m_2} {m_1+m_2}##
Then, assuming the system is initially in equilibrium,

##U=(1/2)k( ((x+(l/2)sin \theta )^2+(y+(l/2)sin \theta)^2))+((x-(l/2)cos \theta)^2+(y-(l/2)sin \theta)^2)##

From here, I can find the Lagrangian.
Correction, I only need to use the moment of inertia about the center of the bar. The parallel axis theorem is unnecessary.
 
Diracobama2181 said:
Correction, I only need to use the moment of inertia about the center of the bar. The parallel axis theorem is unnecessary.
The correction is actually incorrect. The bar itself is massless, so you do need to use the parallel axis theorem to get the MMOI for the system about the system CM.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K