Why Do We Use \(\ell + r\theta\) in Polar Coordinates for Analytical Mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the use of \(\ell + r\theta\) in polar coordinates within analytical mechanics. The length between the tangency point and the top is expressed as \(\ell + r\theta\) because \(\ell\) represents the initial vertical length and \(r\theta\) accounts for the arc length as the angle \(\theta\) changes. The kinetic energy formula \(T = \frac{1}{2} m(\ell + r\theta)^2 \dot{\theta}^2\) incorporates this length to reflect the total distance traveled by the mass in motion. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding geometric relationships in mechanics, particularly for students grappling with these concepts. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for clarity in the application of polar coordinates in analytical mechanics.
TheDestroyer
Messages
401
Reaction score
1
Thanks for integral, he made the potential.pdf analyse for an analytical mechanic but i still have 2 questions,

1- Why does the length up between the tengency point and top of (h) equals:

\ell + r\theta ?

2- Why the kinetic energy here equals:

T = \frac{1}{2} m(\ell + r\theta)^2 \dot{\theta}^2 ?

I mean why we replaced R with \ell + r\theta in the polar coordinates?

Thanks,

TheDestroyer
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
r \theta is the arc length corresponding to the angle \theta Notice that if you let \theta = 2 \pi you get the circumference of the circle.

As you unwind the rope moving the point of tangency through an angle \theta you add the corresponding arc length ( r \theta to the length of rope l which is initially hanging stright down.

I need some time to look at the kinetic engery term. I concentrated on the potential energy term and have not looked into the kinetic energy. I'll get back to you, if no one else contributes.
 
Last edited:
about the r\theta i know it's the arc length (LOL I'm a second year university physics student), but the question is why does it equal to \ell + r\theta in the tangent,

I didn't understand integral, I'm very sorry, please explain it as a math geometric laws, And try using a simple language (I don't mean you language was complicated),

And thanks very much
 
Why no body is answeringgggg?
 
You say you are a second year university student. Did you ever learn to ride a bike? Do you remember the the first time you were given a push and told to pedal.

There is nothing left in this problem which you should not be able to figure out on your own. Please study the diagram I drew for you and think about it. YOU CAN figure it out. Get 'er done
 
.......
 
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