Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Equilibrium configuration in Lagrangian mechanics

  1. May 30, 2012 #1
    Suppose we have a system with scleronomic constraints. Is the condition that ∂V/∂qj=0 for generalized coordinates qj a necessary condition for equilibrium? A sufficient condition?

    I managed to "prove" that the above condition is necessary and sufficient for any type of holonomic constaint, sclerenomic or rheonomic. This must be a mistake, because I can find an example of a rheonomic system where the equilibrium points don't satisfy ∂V/∂qj=0.

    System is in equilibrium iff [itex]\vec{F}_i=0[/itex], where [itex]\vec{F}_i[/itex] is the total force on the ith particle.

    Now, [itex]Q_j=\sum_i \vec{F}_i\cdot\frac{\partial \vec{r}_i}{\partial q_j}[/itex] where Qj is the generalized force associated with the jth generalized coordinate. So, if [itex]\vec{F}_i=0[/itex] then Qj = 0. But [itex]Q_j=-\frac{\partial V}{\partial q_j}[/itex], so ∂V/∂qj=0 is a necessary condition for equilibrium.

    Now we prove that it is a sufficient condition. To do this, we find the [itex]\vec{F}_i[/itex]'s as a function of the Qjs by making virtual displacements δqj to the generalized coordinates. The the virtual work is
    [itex]\delta W = \sum_j Q_j \delta q_j = \sum_i \vec{F}_i \cdot \delta \vec{r}_i[/itex]. Writing [itex]\delta q_j = \sum_i \nabla_i q_j\cdot\delta \vec{r}_i[/itex] (we've tacitly expressed the generalized coordinates as functions of the ri's; [itex]\nabla_i q_j[/itex] stands for [itex]\hat{x}_i\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial x_i}+\hat{y}_i\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial y_i}+\hat{z}_i\frac{\partial q_j}{\partial z_i}[/itex]).

    From this, it follows that [itex]\sum_i \vec{F}_i\cdot\delta \vec{r}_i = \sum_i (\sum_j Q_j \nabla_i q_j)\cdot \delta \vec{r}_i[/itex], implying that [itex]\vec{F}_i=\sum_j Q_j \nabla_i q_j[/itex] herefore, if Q_j = 0, system is in equilibrium. QED?

    Now, as far as I can tell I haven't used the assumption that the constraints are scleronomic, but maybe the assumption sneaked in there somewhere. However, there *must* be a mistake somewhere. Can anyone spot it?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2012 #2
    No one has answered my question. I can only assume that I was unclear in formulating it. So please, if there's something in my post that is confusing, let me know so I can clarify what I'm trying to ask.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Equilibrium configuration in Lagrangian mechanics
  1. Lagrangian Mechanics (Replies: 1)

  2. Lagrangian mechanics (Replies: 9)

  3. Lagrangian Mechanics (Replies: 2)

  4. Lagrangian mechanics? (Replies: 2)

Loading...