Clarification in concept of planar motion of rigid body

AI Thread Summary
Planar motion of a rigid body occurs when all particles move within the same plane, with these planes being parallel. This definition implies that motion confined to two dimensions is considered planar motion, typically within an XY plane. In contrast, three-dimensional bodies can have constrained motion, where orientation remains unchanged, such as a table that can rotate but not tilt. Motion on a curved surface presents two degrees of freedom at each point, with tangent planes that are not necessarily parallel. Ultimately, planar motion simplifies to two-dimensional movement, distinguishing it from more complex three-dimensional dynamics.
manimaran1605
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
When a Rigid body is said to be in planar motion, if all all the particles in the Rigid body moves in same plane and these planes are parallel to each other.

I think i misunderstood this definition especially the particles moves in same plane and these planes are parallel to each other, does it mean all motion in two dimension are Planar motion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Often they mean a body that is 2D, and confined to a plane; call the plane XY.

See http://ocw.nthu.edu.tw/ocw/upload/75/907/ch16.pdf

If the body is 3D then the motion (forces) are constrained so that the body cannot change its orientation ... like a table that can turn, but cannot be tilted or turned over.
 
Nope.

Motion constrained to a curved surface is has essentially two degrees of freedom on how to move, that is at every point, there are two directions on the tangent plane you may move in, but at different points on the curved surface, those tangent planes need not be parallell to each other.

If you think a "curved surface" is difficult to visualize, think of a particle (or small cube/rigid body) moving on the surface of the box.
Essentially, disregarding motion along the edges, you have three non-parallell planes the particle might move upon.
------------------------------------
Planar motion, however, is effectively reducible to 2D-motion
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top