I Forces of Constraint: Solving Euler-Lagrange Equation

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Silviu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constraint Forces
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of the Lagrangian for a point-like object moving along a curved wire, focusing on finding the constraint force in the ##e_{\phi}## direction. The user initially derives a formula for the constraint force but finds that it does not have the correct units of force. It is clarified that the formula used calculates a "generalized force," which corresponds to torque rather than linear force. The correct approach involves recognizing that the Lagrange parameter represents a potential for constraint forces, and the force can be derived from the gradient of this potential in cylindrical coordinates. The user is guided to understand the distinction between the generalized force and the actual force required for their calculations.
Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! I have this Lagrangian: $$L=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{r}^2(1+f'(r)^2)+\frac{1}{2}m\dot{\phi}^2r^2-mgf(r)+\lambda(\phi-\omega t)$$ This represents the motion of a point-like object of mass m along a curved wire with shape $$z=f(r)$$ The wire rotates with constant angular velocity around the z axis $$\omega=\dot{\phi}$$ and I need to find the component of constraint force on the bead in the ##e_{\phi}## direction. Hence why I have that last term in the Lagrangian. Solving the Euler-Lagrange equation for ##\phi##, gives me (using the fact that ##\ddot{\phi}=0##) $$\lambda = 2mr\dot{r}\omega$$ Up to here my answer is like the one in the book. Now, from what I understand, to get the constraint force, you apply this formula: $$F=\lambda \frac{\partial f}{\partial q}$$ where in my case $$f=\phi-\omega t$$ and $$q=\phi$$ If I do this I get $$F_{\phi}=2mr\dot{r}\omega$$ which is wrong as it doesn't have units of force. In their solution they do $$F_{\phi}=\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \phi}=2m\dot{r}\omega$$ which seems correct. So what is wrong with what am I doing? Is the formula I am using wrong, or am I applying it the wrong way? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Silviu said:
$$z=f(r)$$
Silviu said:
$$f=\phi-\omega t$$
I think your problem is that f represents a distance in the first of these equations and an angle in the second.
 
tnich said:
I think your problem is that f represents a distance in the first of these equations and an angle in the second.
Shouldn't ##\lambda## take care of this automatically? Like shouldn't I get the right units, just by applying the formula? The Lagrangian I obtained is the same as the one they obtained so I assume it is correct. Edit: the ##f## that appears in ##z=f(r)## is not the same as the ##f=\phi - \omega t##, in case I wasn't clear there. In the second case I just gave it a general name, to reflect the way I applied the formula.
 
Silviu said:
Shouldn't ##\lambda## take care of this automatically? Like shouldn't I get the right units, just by applying the formula? The Lagrangian I obtained is the same as the one they obtained so I assume it is correct. Edit: the ##f## that appears in ##z=f(r)## is not the same as the ##f=\phi - \omega t##, in case I wasn't clear there. In the second case I just gave it a general name, to reflect the way I applied the formula.
##\lambda## has units consistent with your original equation, so the problem is probably somewhere else.
 
tnich said:
##\lambda## has units consistent with your original equation, so the problem is probably somewhere else.
Yeah, but I am not sure what I am doing wrong...
 
What you calculate with your formula is not the force but the "generalized force". Since your generalized coordinate is an angle this generalized force is a torque.

Of course, you book is correct too. To get the force, you consider the piece with the Lagrange parameter as a potential for the constraint forces (in this case time dependent, but that doesn't matter). Then the force is given as the gradient of this "potential". Now you have to define the gradient in terms of your generalized coordinates. This is fortunately done in any textbook, because you have cylinder coordinates, and the gradient is
$$\vec{\nabla} \Phi(r,\varphi,z)=\vec{e}_r \partial_r \Phi + \frac{\vec{e}_{\varphi}}{r} \partial_{\varphi} \Phi+\vec{e}_z \partial_z \Phi.$$
Note that you don't need to take into account the derivatives of ##\lambda##, because the constraint equation makes this contribution obviously vanish.
 
  • Like
Likes CenMo and Orodruin
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top