Kinetic Energy of rod with lower end in contact with smooth surface

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the kinetic energy (KE) of a rigid rod positioned at an angle above a smooth surface, with one end in contact with the ground. The initial attempt at finding KE includes both translational and rotational components, but there is confusion regarding the motion of the center of mass (CM) and the role of generalized coordinates. It is clarified that since the rod is not fixed to the ground, the CM does not remain stationary, leading to the conclusion that only the angular motion should be considered. The correct approach involves using the angle of rotation and integrating the motion of infinitesimal portions of the rod to determine KE. Ultimately, the problem emphasizes understanding the constraints and motion dynamics of the rod in relation to its contact point.
C. Darwin
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I've got a rigid rod, length 2a, held at an angle \alpha above a smooth horizontal surface. Its end is in contact with the ground. My two generalized coordinates are x, the horizontal position of the center of the rod and \theta the angle between the rod and the vertical.

I'm trying to find the kinetic energy of the rod. I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


As of now, this is what I've done:
KE = \frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2 + \frac{1}{2}I\dot{\theta}^2 = \frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{3}m(2a)^2)\dot{\theta}^2 = \frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2 + \frac{2}{3}ma^2\dot{\theta}^2

Something doesn't seem right though, because I think that \dot{x} should be zero. Carrying out the Lagrangian doesn't seem to show this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
\alpha is the azimuthal angle? Is the rod held to a point in ground? If not, the speed of it's center of mass won't be zero.
Also, I don't think you've got the formula right. K.E can be broken into a translational and a rotational term when you take the rotation about the center of mass. In this case the rotation is about a point in the ground. Perhaps you could use x and z?
 
All motion takes place in the vertical plane. Alpha is just the angle the rod is at when it's initially released. The end of the rod is touching, but NOT attached, to the ground.


I specified the KE of the rod by the translational motion in the x direction and by the rotational motion about the point touching the ground (even though it is slipping backwards). I'm almost certain this is incorrect but I couldn't come up with much better.
 
Ok, so there's no force here along the horizontal. The 2 forces, gravity and normal are both along the vertical. Consequently we should not have any motion along the horizontal. So we can use just one gen coordinate - the angle. Then we can rate of change of the angle (\dot(\theta) ) . Then the speed of any infinitesimal portion at a distance r from the point of contact is just r \dot(\theta) . So you can integrate along the length and find the KE.
 
The point of the problem is to use x and \dot{x} with the lagrangian and prove that the CM stays in place
 
Oh. To know that you don't actually need to know the KE : the potential term is mgy and the constraint condition \dot z =0. None of which contains x, ergo \dot x = 0 .

I think the KE may be found this way: Let x, y be the co-ordinates of the CM. Then y= a\sin\theta ( This is using the condition that the end keeps touching the ground)Then the co-ordinates of any other point on the rod :
(X,Y) = ( x - r\cos\theta , a\sin\theta - r\cos\theta) . Now you can take derivative, square and integrate along r (from -a to a) to find the KE.
 
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