Geometry Help: Solving Lagrangian Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xyius
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

This discussion revolves around a Lagrangian problem that involves geometric relationships related to a cube rolling on a sphere. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the derivation of certain relations for the coordinates x and y.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the geometric derivation of the height and position of the cube as it rolls, questioning the assumptions made about the initial placement and the implications of the cube's size on the formulas presented.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the geometric relationships involved, while others have raised questions about the validity of the assumptions underlying the formulas. There appears to be a productive exchange of ideas, with some clarification being offered.

Contextual Notes

There is an implicit assumption regarding the initial placement of the cube and its ability to roll without slipping, which is being discussed but not fully resolved.

Xyius
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
This is a Lagrangian problem, I am posting it here in introductory physics because what I need help with isn't in Lagrangian mechanics, but rather geometry.

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7504/what3.png

I am confused as how they got those relations for x and y. I have tried to make sense out of it but cannot figure it out. I am sure it is something really simple!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let's start with y. You can probably understand where the (r+b)cos(θ) comes from I hope. Now imagine that you roll the cube around the sphere by an angle θ. The length of the line CB is then what? That's right! It's rθ. So obviously this adds a height rθsin(θ). Now you have

[tex]y = (r+b)cos(θ) + rθsin(θ)[/tex]
 
Hm. I agree with Xyius; I don't think that, as stated, the formula necessarily holds. Consider a much smaller cube in the same place, at the same angle.

The unstated assumption is that the cube was originally placed square and centered on top of the cylinder and rolled to its current location, but that hasn't been specified.
 
Joffan said:
Hm. I agree with Xyius; I don't think that, as stated, the formula necessarily holds. Consider a much smaller cube in the same place, at the same angle.

A much smaller cube would not be able to get to as large of an angle, because the cube must roll without slipping. The formula is valid.
 
Ah! I understand now! Thank you very much :]
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
733
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K