Finding the Lagrange equations of motion for 2 sliding blocks

In summary: Haha yes, that's always a good idea to draw a diagram. It helps visualize the problem and can often point out where our assumptions or equations may be wrong. Good catch on the constraints, I didn't even realize they were missing until I saw your diagram.In summary, the problem involves a wedge with an incline and two blocks, one sliding on the wedge and the other on a flat surface. The goal is to find Lagrange's equations of motion for the system. After attempting a solution using the center of mass, it becomes clear that a simpler choice of coordinates would be more appropriate. A diagram helps to visualize the problem and identify missing constraints.
  • #1
Wavefunction
99
4

Homework Statement



The first block with mass [itex] m_1 [/itex] slides without friction on a wedge which has an incline of angle [itex]\alpha[/itex]. The wedged shaped block has a mass [itex] m_2 [/itex]. The second block is also allowed to slide on a flat frictionless line. Find Lagrange's equations of motion.

Homework Equations



[itex] L = T-U [/itex]

[itex] \frac{∂L}{∂q_j}-\frac{d}{dt}\frac{∂L}{∂\dot{q_j}}=0 [/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



First I'll define a vector [itex] \vec{R} [/itex] that points to the center of mass of the system. Also [itex] \vec{r_1} [/itex] is the vector that points to [itex] m_1 [/itex] and [itex] \vec{r_2} [/itex] is the vector that points to [itex] m_2 [/itex]. Additionally [itex] \vec{R}=\frac{1}{M}[m_1\vec{r_1}+m_2\vec{r_2}][/itex]. Finally let [itex] \vec{r} = \vec{r_2}-\vec{r_1} [/itex].

If I combine these equations I'll get [itex] \vec{r_1} = \vec{R}+\frac{m_2}{M}\vec{r} [/itex] and [itex] \vec{r_2} = \vec{R}-\frac{m_1}{M}\vec{r} [/itex]

Also [itex] \dot{\vec{r_1}} = \dot{\vec{R}}+\frac{m_2}{M}\dot{\vec{r}} [/itex] and [itex]\dot{\vec{r_2}} = \dot{\vec{R}}-\frac{m_1}{M}\dot{\vec{r}}[/itex]

Now I need the total kinetic energy of the system: [itex] T [/itex]

[itex] T = \frac{M}{2}(\dot{\vec{r_1}}+\dot{\vec{r_2}})^2 [/itex] Now I'll check this expression for accuracy when [itex] \dot{\vec{r_2}} = \vec{0} [/itex]. When the second block is stationary that implies that [itex] \dot{\vec{R}} = \frac{m_1}{M}\dot{\vec{r}} [/itex] Which if I substitute back into [itex] T = \frac{M}{2}(\dot{\vec{r_1}})^2 [/itex] gives [itex] \frac{M}{2}(\frac{m_1+m_2}{M}\dot{\vec{r}})^2[/itex] The kinetic energy of the second block will be zero since it is at rest so setting [itex] m_2=0 [/itex] gives [itex] \frac{m_1}{2}(\dot{\vec{r}})^2 [/itex] So in the limit that the velocity of the second block goes to zero I get back to the familiar [itex] T [/itex] of just one particle.

Now [itex] \dot{\vec{R}} = (\dot{X},\dot{Y}) [/itex] and [itex] \dot{\vec{r}} = (\dot{x},\dot{y}) [/itex]

[itex] T = \frac{M}{2}(2\dot{\vec{R}}+\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\dot{\vec{r}})^2 [/itex]
[itex] T=\frac{M}{2}[4\dot{\vec{R}}\cdot\dot{\vec{R}}+(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2\dot{\vec{r}}\cdot\dot{\vec{r}}+4\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\dot{\vec{R}}\cdot\dot{\vec{r}}] [/itex]
[itex] T = \frac{M}{2}[4(\dot{X}^2+\dot{Y}^2)+(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)+4\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}(\dot{X}\dot{x}+\dot{Y}\dot{y})][/itex]

Okay that's [itex] T [/itex] Now I need [itex] U [/itex]

[itex] U = M(\vec{g}\cdot\vec{r_1}+\vec{g}\cdot\vec{r_2})[/itex]
where [itex] \vec{g} = (0,-g) [/itex], [itex] \vec{r_1} = (X+\frac{m_2}{M}x,Y+\frac{m_2}{M}y) [/itex], and [itex] \vec{r_2} = (X-\frac{m_1}{M}x,Y-\frac{m_1}{M}y)[/itex]

Okay so now I need to apply my constraints which are now: [itex]\frac{Y}{X}=tan(\alpha)[/itex] and [itex] \frac{y}{x}=tan(\alpha) [/itex] so plugging into both [itex] T [/itex] and [itex] U [/itex]

[itex] T=\frac{M}{2}[4(1+tan^2(\alpha))\dot{X}^2+(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2(1+tan^2(\alpha))\dot{x}^2+4\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}(1+tan^2(\alpha))\dot{X}\dot{x}] [/itex]

[itex] T =\frac{Msec^2(\alpha)}{2}[4\dot{X}^2+(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2\dot{x}^2+4\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\dot{X}\dot{x}] [/itex]

and

[itex] U = M(\vec{g}\cdot(\vec{r_1}+\vec{r_2})) = M[-2gtan(\alpha)X-g\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}tan(\alpha)x] [/itex]

[itex] U = Mgtan(\alpha)[-2X-\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}x] [/itex]

Then [itex] L= T-U [/itex] and [itex] H = T+U [/itex]

[itex] L = T -U = \frac{Msec^2(\alpha)}{2}[4\dot{X}^2+(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2\dot{x}^2+4\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\dot{X}\dot{x}]-Mgtan(\alpha)[-2X-\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}x] [/itex]

Now the momenta are: [itex] p_X = \frac{∂L}{∂\dot{X}} = \frac{Msec^2(\alpha)}{2}[8\dot{X}+4\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\dot{x}] [/itex] and [itex] p_x =\frac{∂L}{∂\dot{x}}= Msec^2(\alpha)[(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2\dot{x}+2\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\dot{X}] [/itex]

Also: [itex] \frac{∂L}{∂X} = 2Mgtan(\alpha) [/itex] and [itex] \frac{∂L}{∂x} = (m_2-m_1)gtan(\alpha) [/itex]

Then the Lagrange equations are:

[itex]x[/itex]: [itex] (m_2-m_1)gtan(\alpha)-Msec^2(\alpha)[(\frac{m_2-m_1}{M})^2\ddot{x}+2\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\ddot{X}]=0 [/itex]

[itex]X[/itex]: [itex] 2Mgtan(\alpha)-Msec^2(\alpha)[4\ddot{X}+2\frac{m_2-m_1}{M}\ddot{x}]=0 [/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think a much simpler choice of coordinates, since we are dealing with rigid bodies, would be one coordinate for the tip of the wedge, and then one coordinate for the distance up and down the wedge of the block...

Your choice of coordinates, seem ill equipped to be constrained correctly. Specifically I don't see why Y/X=tan(alpha), or that y/x=tan(alpha). Your X and Y points to the center of mass, I don't see why the Center of mass has to lie along the angle defined by the incline, surely that would be a great coincidence. Your x and y are coordinates for a separation vector, I don't see how that has to do with the incline angle at all...

Maybe draw a diagram, see where these vectors you have defined are pointing, and see if they have anything to do with the actual angle of the inclined plane (they don't).

EDIT: I also don't see the constraint that the wedge must be moving along a flat surface in your equations. This gives some indication that something is wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Wavefunction said:

Homework Statement



The first block with mass [itex] m_1 [/itex] slides without friction on a wedge which has an incline of angle [itex]\alpha[/itex]. The wedged shaped block has a mass [itex] m_2 [/itex]. The second block is also allowed to slide on a flat frictionless line. Find Lagrange's equations of motion.

Homework Equations



[itex] L = T-U [/itex]

[itex] \frac{∂L}{∂q_j}-\frac{d}{dt}\frac{∂L}{∂\dot{q_j}}=0 [/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



[itex] y_1=tan(\alpha)x_1 [/itex]

[itex] T=\frac{M}{2}[(\dot{x_2}-\dot{x_1})^2+tan^2(\alpha)(\dot{x_1})^2] [/itex]

[itex] U=m_1gtan(\alpha)x_1 [/itex]

That was my first intuition, but I felt it was wrong because I thought I needed to look at the whole system.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Matterwave said:
I think a much simpler choice of coordinates, since we are dealing with rigid bodies, would be one coordinate for the tip of the wedge, and then one coordinate for the distance up and down the wedge of the block...

Your choice of coordinates, seem ill equipped to be constrained correctly. Specifically I don't see why Y/X=tan(alpha), or that y/x=tan(alpha). Your X and Y points to the center of mass, I don't see why the Center of mass has to lie along the angle defined by the incline, surely that would be a great coincidence. Your x and y are coordinates for a separation vector, I don't see how that has to do with the incline angle at all...

Maybe draw a diagram, see where these vectors you have defined are pointing, and see if they have anything to do with the actual angle of the inclined plane (they don't).

EDIT: I also don't see the constraint that the wedge must be moving along a flat surface in your equations. This gives some indication that something is wrong.

Okay well here was my thought process I wanted to try to look at the motion of the center of mass of the system. Basically there would be two motions: the center of mass of the system and of block one. I see now that it won't work because it would be double counting motion: I should have just considered the center of mass since block one is a part of determining the center of mass if I wanted to try that approach.
 
  • #5
You certainly do need to look at the whole system. But your choice of coordinates in your first post makes this problem really really hard.

Let's look at what happens when we have a much simpler set of coordinates. Suppose ##\mu## points from the origin to the tip of the wedge, and ##\tau## points from the tip of the wedge up its incline to the center of the block. We have only these 2 degrees of freedom in this problem, because the wedge is constrained to move 1 dimensionally along a flat surface, and the block is also constrained to move 1-dimensinoaly along the incline.

The kinetic energy of the wedge is therefore:

$$T_{wedge}=\frac{1}{2}m_2 \dot{\mu}^2$$

The kinetic energy of the block is a little trickier, because as it moves in ##\tau##, the wedge moves in ##\mu##. And so the kinetic energy of the block should depend on both of these coordinates. To find its kinetic energy, let x and y be the coordinates of the block itself. Then the kinetic energy is obviously:

$$T_{block}=\frac{1}{2}m_1(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)$$

Now, how are x and y related to ##\mu## and ##\tau##? (Hint: draw a diagram) Once you figure that out, you should be quite close to solving the problem.

Do the analysis exactly the same way for potential energy. Except now the wedge has no potential energy because it can't fall.
 
  • #6
Matterwave said:
You certainly do need to look at the whole system. But your choice of coordinates in your first post makes this problem really really hard.

Let's look at what happens when we have a much simpler set of coordinates. Suppose ##\mu## points from the origin to the tip of the wedge, and ##\tau## points from the tip of the wedge up its incline to the center of the block. We have only these 2 degrees of freedom in this problem, because the wedge is constrained to move 1 dimensionally along a flat surface, and the block is also constrained to move 1-dimensinoaly along the incline.

The kinetic energy of the wedge is therefore:

$$T_{wedge}=\frac{1}{2}m_2 \dot{\mu}^2$$

The kinetic energy of the block is a little trickier, because as it moves in ##\tau##, the wedge moves in ##\mu##. And so the kinetic energy of the block should depend on both of these coordinates. To find its kinetic energy, let x and y be the coordinates of the block itself. Then the kinetic energy is obviously:

$$T_{block}=\frac{1}{2}m_1(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2)$$

Now, how are x and y related to ##\mu## and ##\tau##? (Hint: draw a diagram) Once you figure that out, you should be quite close to solving the problem.

Do the analysis exactly the same way for potential energy. Except now the wedge has no potential energy because it can't fall.

So then I would need [itex]x=\mu+\tau cos(\alpha)[/itex] and [itex]y=\tau sin(\alpha) [/itex]?
 
  • #7
Yes! Now that you have ##x=\mu+\tau\cos(\alpha)## and ##y=\tau\sin(\alpha)## you can get:

$$\dot{x}=\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}\cos(\alpha)$$
and
$$\dot{y}=\dot{\tau}\sin(\alpha)$$

And directly substitute these into the equation for the kinetic energy. The potential energy is very simply then:

$$U_{block}=m_1 gy=m_1 g\tau\sin(\alpha)$$

And you can get a simple Lagrangian.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #8
Wavefunction said:

Homework Statement



The first block with mass [itex] m_1 [/itex] slides without friction on a wedge which has an incline of angle [itex]\alpha[/itex]. The wedged shaped block has a mass [itex] m_2 [/itex]. The second block is also allowed to slide on a flat frictionless line. Find Lagrange's equations of motion.

Homework Equations



[itex] L = T-U [/itex]

[itex] \frac{∂L}{∂q_j}-\frac{d}{dt}\frac{∂L}{∂\dot{q_j}}=0 [/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution



[itex] T=T_{wedge}+T_{block}=\frac{m_2}{2}\dot{\mu}^2+\frac{m_1}{2}[(\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}cos(\alpha))^2+\dot{\tau}^2sin^2(\alpha)] [/itex]

[itex] U=m_1g\tau sin(\alpha) [/itex]

[itex] L = \frac{m_2}{2}\dot{\mu}^2+\frac{m_1}{2}[(\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}cos(\alpha))^2+\dot{\tau}^2sin^2(\alpha)]-m_1g\tau sin(\alpha) [/itex]

[itex]p_{\mu}=\frac{∂L}{∂\dot{\mu}} = m_2\dot{\mu}+m_1[\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}cos(\alpha)] [/itex]

[itex]\frac{∂L}{∂\mu}=0 [/itex]

and

[itex] p_{\tau} = \frac{∂L}{∂\dot{\tau}} = m_1[(\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}cos(\alpha))cos(\alpha)+\dot{\tau}sin^2(\alpha)] [/itex]

[itex] \frac{∂L}{∂\tau} = -m_1gsin(\alpha) [/itex]

For the wedge: [itex] \frac{d}{dt}[m_2\dot{\mu}+m_1(\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}cos(\alpha)]=0 [/itex]

momentum is conserved for the wedge.

For the block: [itex] m_1gsin(\alpha)+m_1[\ddot{\mu}cos(\alpha)+\ddot{\tau}]=0 [/itex]
Okay so I think this does look better
 
  • #9
Check your math on the canonical momenta. Distribute the square correctly in the square term:

$$(\dot{\mu}+\dot{\tau}\cos(\alpha))^2=\dot{\mu}^2+\dot{\tau}^2\cos^2(α)+2\dot{\mu}\dot{\tau}\cos(\alpha)$$

There should be a trig identity you can use to make things a little cleaner after you take this square too.

EDIT: No wait, I misread your math. I think you are right as well. It just looks a little cleaner if you distribute the square because of the trig identity you can use.
 
Last edited:

1. What are the Lagrange equations of motion?

The Lagrange equations of motion are a set of equations used to describe the motion of a system in terms of its generalized coordinates and their derivatives. They are derived from the principle of least action and are used in classical mechanics to solve problems involving multiple degrees of freedom.

2. How are the Lagrange equations of motion derived?

The Lagrange equations of motion are derived by applying the principle of least action, which states that the path taken by a system between two points in time is the one that minimizes the action integral. This leads to a set of equations known as the Euler-Lagrange equations, which can be used to find the Lagrange equations of motion for a given system.

3. What is the significance of using generalized coordinates in the Lagrange equations of motion?

The use of generalized coordinates allows for a more efficient and elegant way of describing the motion of a system with multiple degrees of freedom. It eliminates the need to use Cartesian coordinates and reduces the number of equations needed to describe the system. This makes it easier to solve complex problems involving multiple moving parts.

4. Can the Lagrange equations of motion be used for any type of system?

Yes, the Lagrange equations of motion can be used for any type of system as long as it can be described in terms of generalized coordinates. This includes systems with constraints, such as two sliding blocks, as well as systems with varying masses and forces.

5. Are the Lagrange equations of motion more useful than Newton's laws of motion?

The Lagrange equations of motion can be more useful than Newton's laws of motion in certain situations, such as when dealing with systems with multiple degrees of freedom or systems with constraints. They also provide a more systematic approach to solving problems in classical mechanics. However, Newton's laws are still widely used and are often more intuitive for simpler systems.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
19
Views
936
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
301
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
387
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
913
Back
Top