Constraint Forces and Conservation of energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between constraint forces and energy conservation in classical mechanics. It explores whether energy conservation can be maintained without assuming that the normal force (N) is always perpendicular to the surface. The assumption of N being perpendicular is typically justified for calculational convenience and is linked to energy conservation when external forces derive from a time-independent potential. Participants clarify the distinction between normal force (N) and ground reaction force (R), emphasizing that energy conservation holds only if the work done by non-conservative forces, such as friction, is zero. Ultimately, if R does not equal N, energy conservation is compromised.
tut_einstein
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Suppose you are trying the solve the equation of motion of say a particle constrained to move on a surface f(x\vec{},t)=0. The equation of motion is:

mx\ddot{} = F\vec{} + N\vec{}, where F is an known external force and N is the unknown constraint force.

Now, when you assume that N always perpendicular to the surface, all classical mechanics books motivate that assumption by saying that it's for calculational convenience because N can in principle have any component parallel to the surface without violating the constraint. So, we just get rid of that degree of freedom by saying N = \lambda(t) *grad(f), where lambda is an arbitrary lagrange multiplier. this also let's us solve for four unknowns using four equations.
However, we also know that the assumption that N is always perpenidcular to the surface has a physical interpretation that energy is always conserved if F is derivable from a time independent potential and the surface doesn't have any explicit time dependence.

My question is whether it is possible to have energy conservation without assuming N is always perpendicular to the surface. Or did the assumption just happened to correspond to what actually happens?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
tut_einstein said:
My question is whether it is possible to have energy conservation without assuming N is always perpendicular to the surface. Or did the assumption just happened to correspond to what actually happens?

I'm not so sure what you mean exactly because apparently N is the normal force but then you are adding it in x-direction(if by x you mean horizontal line) . I also think you must differentiate between what you mean by normal force N and ground reaction force R. Ground reaction force R is the sum of normal force N and friction f which is tangent to the moving surface. Therefore, N and f are just components of R in y and x directions (or n and t directions etc).

The conservation energy is valid only if the sum of the works done by non-conservative forces like friction is zero. That means if R≠N conservation of energy is not working. For it to work we must have R=N. That is, work done by friction is zero.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top