Force of Constraint for Particle in a Paraboloid

Click For Summary
A particle sliding inside a frictionless paraboloid defined by r^2 = az experiences a force of constraint that is proportional to (1 + 4r^2/a^2)^{-3/2}. The calculations for the radial and vertical components of the force yield F_r = 2rλ and F_z = -aλ, leading to a total force of F = (4r^2 + a^2)^{1/2}λ. The discrepancy in the expected exponent arises from the need to express the unit vector of the force, which requires normalization. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the Lagrange multiplier in the context of the Euler-Lagrange equations to solve for λ. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately determining the force of constraint in this scenario.
Izzhov
Messages
120
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A particle is sliding inside a frictionless paraboloid defined by r^2 = az with no gravity. We must show that the force of constraint is proportional to (1+4r^2/a^2)^{-3/2}

Homework Equations


f(r,z) = r^2-az = 0
F_r = \lambda \frac{\partial f}{\partial r} (and similarly for F_z)

The Attempt at a Solution


F_r = \lambda \frac{\partial f}{\partial r} = 2r\lambda and F_z = \lambda \frac{\partial f}{\partial z} = -a\lambda and hence the total force of constraint is F = \sqrt{F_r^2+F_z^2} = (4r^2+a^2)^{1/2}\lambda.

So you can factor out the a from the square root and get (1+4r^2/a^2)^{1/2} a \lambda but the exponent is supposed to be -3/2, not 1/2. What am I missing? Am I supposed to find a factor of (1+4r^2/a^2)^{-2} in the \lambda somewhere? How would I go about doing that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello izzhov,
You calculated the module of F. Perhaps the force of constrain is proportional to (1+4r^2/a^2)^{-3/2} since \hat{F}=\frac{\vec{F}}{|F|}. (\lambda should be a number, independent of r).
 
The ##\lambda## is the Lagrange multiplier in the Euler-Lagrange equations, extended with the constraints (see a treatise on EL / Hamilton's principle, e.g Goldstein, Classical Mechanics -- or, as I suspect, your lecture notes) $${d\over dt}{\partial L\over \partial \dot q_k} - {\partial L\over \partial q_k}=\lambda a_k.$$That's three eqations in four variables (the coordinates and ##\lambda##). The fourth equation is ##{df\over dt} = 0##. ##f## is the constraint equation and df = ##\sum {\partial f\over \partial q_k}\dot q + {\partial f\over \partial t}## (the very last one being 0).

You need to solve for ##\lambda## only, since you aren't interested in the coordinates. Perhaps knowing that ##L = T## and choosing a nice set of ##q_k## makes it easier. Your choice is perhaps fine, but you do need to work out ##T##.

I do not understand the cwasd post (nice password candidate, this cwasdwqe combination!)
 
BvU said:
I do not understand the cwasd post (nice password candidate, this cwasdwqe combination!)

Yep, I was definitely thinking outside the box, feeling sleepy. You're right with Euler-Lagrange.
Cwasdqwe's too weak for a proper password... :w
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K