Finding the Lagrangian of a bead sliding along a wire

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the kinetic energy of a bead sliding along a parabolic wire in a vertical plane, constrained by the equation z = x²/a. Participants clarify the relationships between the variables, specifically how to express z-dot in terms of x and x-dot. One user suggests that the kinetic energy can be formulated as K = (1/2)m((x-dot)² + (z-dot)²), while another corrects the expression for z-dot to z-dot = 2x(x-dot)/a. The conversation emphasizes the importance of eliminating z and z-dot to express kinetic energy solely in terms of x and x-dot. The thread highlights the collaborative effort to solve the problem accurately.
Rumor
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


"A bead with mass m slides without friction on a wire which lies in a vertical plane near the earth. The wire lies in the x-z plane and is bent into a shape conforming to the parabola az = x2, where a is a positive known constant. (X is horizontal and z is vertical) The particle moves in the x-z plane but its motion is constrained by the requirement that it remains on the wire.

Find the kinetic energy in terms of m, a, x, x-dot. (Eliminate z and z-dot using the constraint)"

Homework Equations


z = x2/a and z-dot = (x-dot)2/a
(I think these are the restraint equations, unless I did these wrong.)

The Attempt at a Solution



I know that K = (1/2)mv2, so in this case wouldn't that translate to K = (1/2)*m*((x-dot)2 + (z-dot)2)?

If so, then continuing on, K = (1/2)*m*(x-dot)2+((x-dot)2/a)2) or K = (1/2)*m*(x-dot)2+[(x-dot)4/a2]

Am I doing this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rumor said:
1.

Homework Equations


z = x2/a and z-dot = (x-dot)2/a
(I think these are the restraint equations, unless I did these wrong.)


z-dot = what now?
 
It's not specified within the problem given. I just rearranged the given equation ( az = x^2 ) and applied it to z-dot as well, since part of the problem later requires eliminating z and z-dot.
 
Well, I would have written z-dot = 2x(x-dot)/a.

Would you like to see how I got that? Might be a chance for you to make a fool out of me. It happens often enough! :-)
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top