Find Constraint Equation for Block on Wedge

  • Thread starter Thread starter PFuser1232
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Block Wedge
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the constraint equation that relates the acceleration of a block on a wedge to the wedge's acceleration. The initial equation presented is $$h - y = (x - X) \tan{\theta}$$, with a consideration of redefining X to the center of mass of the wedge. It is clarified that if X is redefined, the equation must be adjusted accordingly to maintain consistency with the geometry of the situation. The participants agree that since X and the center of mass differ by a constant, their second derivatives will be equal, simplifying the trigonometric calculations. Ultimately, the choice of X was made to facilitate the trigonometric relationships involved.
PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20
Suppose we want to find the constraint equation relating the acceleration of a block on a wedge to the acceleration of the wedge (see attached images). We can write:
$$h - y = (x - X) \tan{\theta}$$
What if ##X## was measured to the centre of mass of the wedge for instance? Wouldn't the correct equation be:
$$h - y = (X - x) \tan{\theta}$$
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    12 KB · Views: 602
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 561
Physics news on Phys.org
MohammedRady97 said:
Suppose we want to find the constraint equation relating the acceleration of a block on a wedge to the acceleration of the wedge (see attached images). We can write:
$$h - y = (x - X) \tan{\theta}$$
I see how you got this and it makes sense.

MohammedRady97 said:
What if ##X## was measured to the centre of mass of the wedge for instance? Wouldn't the correct equation be:
$$h - y = (X - x) \tan{\theta}$$
I do not see how you got that. You still need the sides of the same triangle, you've just redefined what X is. So you need to rewrite your first equation using your new X. For example, if ## X_{cm} = X + a##, then your formula would become ##h - y = (x - X_{cm} + a) \tan{\theta}##.
 
Doc Al said:
I see how you got this and it makes sense.I do not see how you got that. You still need the sides of the same triangle, you've just redefined what X is. So you need to rewrite your first equation using your new X. For example, if ## X_{cm} = X + a##, then your formula would become ##h - y = (x - X_{cm} + a) \tan{\theta}##.

I just realized the error in my reasoning. This makes sense now. Since ##X## and ##X_{cm}## differ by a constant, their second derivatives should be equal. We chose ##X## to be the distance to the edge of the wedge to simplify the trigonometry required, right?
 
Last edited:
MohammedRady97 said:
We chose XX to be the distance to the edge of the wedge to simplify the trigonometry required, right?
Right.
 
  • Like
Likes PFuser1232
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top