How Is the Constraint Function in Equation 727 Used in Lagrangian Mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the constraint function in Equation 727 related to Lagrangian mechanics, particularly in the context of a cylinder rolling without slipping. The constraint is expressed as x = aφ, where x is the distance down the plane, a is the cylinder's radius, and φ is the angle turned through by the cylinder. This relationship illustrates how the distance traveled by a point on the cylinder's boundary corresponds to the distance traveled by the cylinder's center axis. The participants express appreciation for the clarity of the example and the resources provided. Overall, the constraint function is crucial for analyzing motion involving non-potential forces in Lagrangian mechanics.
cmmcnamara
Messages
121
Reaction score
1
So in my internet readings on Lagrangian mechanics I started researching applications with non-potential and/or non-conservative forces and came across this page:

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node90.html

This page is fascinating but I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding a piece of the first example. Can some one explain to me the constraint function they came up with? Its labeled as equation 727. I feel like I'm missing something obvious but I just can't figure it out. Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't this the no slip condition?

That is in words

The distance (χ) down the plane = the angle turned through by the cylinder times the radius
 
Precisely: If the cylinder is rolling without slipping the distance, traveled of a fixed point from the initial time, where we set \phi=0 is given by the circumference along the cylinder boundary, i.e., it's a \phi, where a is the cylinder's radius. The same distance the cylinder's center axis has travelled, i.e., we must have the constraint
x=a \phi,
where we have chosen x=0 as an initial condition. The constraint function is then given (up to a sign and an overall multiplicative constant, which both are irrelevant for the solution of the problem) thus reads in this case as given by Eq. (727).

All the scripts of Fitzpatrick's are just mavelous by the way!:smile:
 
Sigh...I knew it was something obvious, thanks a lot guys!
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top