Calculus of variations for suspended rope

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
So perhaps you know this classical problem: A rope is suspended between two endpoints x=±a. Find what function describing the shape of the rope that will minimize its potential energy.
The example is worked through in my book but I have some questions:
The solution assumes uniform linear density which makes sense. However, in calculating the potential energy of the rope they write:
U(y) = -ρg∫y ds , ds = √(1+y'2)dx

First question:
I want to discuss this ds. What physically justifies using this as your "weight" for the average potential energy?

The book then proceeds to solve the problem using lagrange multipliers since the constraint is that the length of the rope remains fixed L. However, my book never mentions anything about the constraint y(-a)=y(a)=0. Why does this constraint not have to be taken into account?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
However, in calculating the potential energy of the rope they write:
U(y) = -ρg∫y ds , ds = √(1+y'2)dx

First question:
I want to discuss this ds. What physically justifies using this as your "weight" for the average potential energy?

The infinitesimal mass element of the rope is dM = ρ ds, ds = √(dx2+dy2), right? Then you have dU = -dM g y like usual

aaaa202 said:
The book then proceeds to solve the problem using lagrange multipliers since the constraint is that the length of the rope remains fixed L. However, my book never mentions anything about the constraint y(-a)=y(a)=0. Why does this constraint not have to be taken into account?
You take this into account when you solve the resulting differential equation. They give the boundary conditions.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
995
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top