The Lagrangian of a Pulley System

In summary: Strictly speaking, ##\ell## is not the same as the distance from the axle, because the axle has finite width. But, anyway for this part of the calculation it doesn't matter, since...In summary, the Lagrangian of the system is given by: ##L = -\rho g l^2/2##.
  • #1
CAF123
Gold Member
2,948
88

Homework Statement


A uniform flexible chain of mass M and length L is hung under gravity over a frictionless pulley of radius a and moment of inertia I whose axle is at a fixed height above the ground. Write down the Lagrangian of this system in terms of a generalized coordinate l denoting the displacement below the axle of one end of the chain. Assume that L is sufficiently long that some part of the chain hangs freely from both sides of the pulley.

Homework Equations


L = T-V, V the potential energy term (which I should take to be of the form -mgz, where z is the distance of the CoM of the system from the fixed point and zero potential reference point there.

The Attempt at a Solution


Let ##l## be the distance of one end of the chain from the axle. Let ##l'## be the distance of the other end from the axle. Then ##l + l' + a\pi = L##. I don't see a way to incorporate the fixed height in (H), unless I introduce more parameters namely the height of the two ends above the ground ##z_1## and ##z_2## in which case ##z_1 + l = H## and ##z_2 + l' = H##.

I am not really sure how to model the kinetic energy term. One point cannot have the entire mass of the string.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I don't think that the fixed height is crucial for solving the problem here, you are on the right track with just [itex]l[/itex] and [itex]l'[/itex] as the generalized coordinates since potential energy is defined up to an additive constant anyway. Since the chain is a continuous rather than a discrete body, perhaps you should consider differential kinetic and potential energy terms and then integrate to figure out the total Lagrangian.
 
  • #3
doesn't the chain move with speed dl/dt ?
 
  • #4
If l and l' have a constant sum, only one of them is enough to describe the state of the whole system...
 
  • #5
Hi everyone,
kontejnjer said:
I don't think that the fixed height is crucial for solving the problem here, you are on the right track with just [itex]l[/itex] and [itex]l'[/itex] as the generalized coordinates since potential energy is defined up to an additive constant anyway. Since the chain is a continuous rather than a discrete body, perhaps you should consider differential kinetic and potential energy terms and then integrate to figure out the total Lagrangian.
Ok, it turns out that the kinetic energy term was easy and the potential energy term not so. I went with your suggestion of integrating over the length of the strings to get the total potential energy contribution of each segment relative to the fixed axle.

dauto said:
doesn't the chain move with speed dl/dt ?
Yes, so since the string is inextensible and therefore of fixed length, if one end moves up the other end moves down with the same speed. So the kinetic energy of the string is simply ##(1/2) M \dot{l}^2## since all points on the string have the same speed.

BvU said:
If l and l' have a constant sum, only one of them is enough to describe the state of the whole system...
Yes, ##l + a\pi + l' = L \Rightarrow \dot{l} = - \dot{l'}## so they are related by this constraint and they cannot both be generlaised velocities.

Put the zero of a coordinate system at the axle. Then the potential energy of a small piece of the string in segment from [-l,0] is ##dU = \rho d\ell g \ell## where ##\ell## is the distance of a small segment from the axle. So integrate over the whole segment gives ##U = \rho g l^2/2##

I think this is the right idea but I can't get the other segments (the portion wrapped around the pulley and the portion of length l') in terms of known quantities.

Edit: Alternatively, if I could find the centre of mass of the system (as a function of ##l##) which lies some distance ##h## below the axle then I could simply write the potential energy as -Mgh(l).

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
CAF123 said:
Yes, so since the string is inextensible and therefore of fixed length, if one end moves up the other end moves down with the same speed. So the kinetic energy of the string is simply ##(1/2) M \dot{l}^2## since all points on the string have the same speed.
yep. nice and simple :)

CAF123 said:
Put the zero of a coordinate system at the axle. Then the potential energy of a small piece of the string in segment from [-l,0] is ##dU = \rho d\ell g \ell## where ##\ell## is the distance of a small segment from the axle. So integrate over the whole segment gives ##U = \rho g l^2/2##
Strictly speaking, ##\ell## is not the same as the distance from the axle, because the axle has finite width. But, anyway for this part of the calculation it doesn't matter, since x translation does not affect the potential energy of a vertical piece of string.

Also, there should be a minus sign I think. You integrated from -l to zero right? surely there will be a minus sign..

CAF123 said:
I think this is the right idea but I can't get the other segments (the portion wrapped around the pulley and the portion of length l') in terms of known quantities.
keep going. You talked before about l' being the length of the other section. So, write out l' in terms of l, and figure out the limits of integration, then integrate!

Also, do you really need to integrate the segment wrapped around the pulley? Think about it for a bit.

edit: sorry if my last line sounds condescending. It's not meant to be, I'm just being cautious about following the rules of PF, not giving away too much about the answer.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Hi BruceW,
BruceW said:
Strictly speaking, ##\ell## is not the same as the distance from the axle, because the axle has finite width. But, anyway for this part of the calculation it doesn't matter, since x translation does not affect the potential energy of a vertical piece of string.
Ok, so the distance of a piece of string from the axle is ##a + \ell##. But since ##a## is constant I could ignore the constant terms and perhaps the cross terms will cancel later on.

Also, there should be a minus sign I think. You integrated from -l to zero right? surely there will be a minus sign..
Right, there is a minus.

keep going. You talked before about l' being the length of the other section. So, write out l' in terms of l, and figure out the limits of integration, then integrate!
I got it, thanks!

Also, do you really need to integrate the segment wrapped around the pulley? Think about it for a bit.
Indeed not, since we are to assume that there is a sufficient amount of string over the pulley, there will always be a constant length ##a\pi## over the pulley and so we can ignore the potential energy contribution. A small piece of string wrapped around the pulley can be written as ##d\ell = a d\theta## and its potential energy ##\rho g d\ell##. I think this would be the right integral to check: $$U = \rho g a\int_{\pi}^0 \text{d}\theta = \text{const}$$
Edit: No, wait, that cannot be correct by inspection of dimensions. I seem to be a missing a dimension of length somewhere which I cannot find.

edit: sorry if my last line sounds condescending
Not at all!
 
Last edited:
  • #8
CAF123 said:
Hi BruceW,

Ok, so the distance of a piece of string from the axle is ##a + \ell##. But since ##a## is constant I could ignore the constant terms and perhaps the cross terms will cancel later on.
That's not quite right still. But maybe it's best not to dwell on this stuff... It is a 2d problem, and the vertical section of string essentially has a mass per area ##\delta_{(x-a)} \rho## So the 2d equation is ##dU=\delta_{(x-a)} \rho y dx dy## when we integrate over x, we simply get to your equation ##dU=\rho y dy##. So I think you intuitively skipped this first step. Which is not surprising, since teachers skip these kinds of steps all the time. But I think sometimes it's nice to recognise these kinds of steps.
CAF123 said:
Indeed not, since we are to assume that there is a sufficient amount of string over the pulley, there will always be a constant length ##a\pi## over the pulley and so we can ignore the potential energy contribution.
yeah, exactly. The contribution to the potential energy does not depend on time, or on our variable ##\ell## so we can ignore its contribution.

CAF123 said:
A small piece of string wrapped around the pulley can be written as ##d\ell = a d\theta## and its potential energy ##\rho g d\ell##. I think this would be the right integral to check: $$U = \rho g a\int_{\pi}^0 \text{d}\theta = \text{const}$$
Edit: No, wait, that cannot be correct by inspection of dimensions. I seem to be a missing a dimension of length somewhere which I cannot find.
umm, hehe you don't really need to find this value, since you've already stated that as long as there is enough string over the pulley, there will always be the same amount of mass here, and in the same position, so the contribution to the potential energy is constant.

But I guess you can calculate it anyway. uh... it looks like you're calculating the weight, rather than the potential energy. Weight is ##\rho g d \ell## so calculating this won't give you potential energy.
 
  • #9
BruceW said:
That's not quite right still. But maybe it's best not to dwell on this stuff... It is a 2d problem, and the vertical section of string essentially has a mass per area ##\delta_{(x-a)} \rho## So the 2d equation is ##dU=\delta_{(x-a)} \rho y dx dy## when we integrate over x, we simply get to your equation ##dU=\rho y dy##.
Let me just check the notation - that is a delta function there?
umm, hehe you don't really need to find this value, since you've already stated that as long as there is enough string over the pulley, there will always be the same amount of mass here, and in the same position, so the contribution to the potential energy is constant.

But I guess you can calculate it anyway. uh... it looks like you're calculating the weight, rather than the potential energy. Weight is ##\rho g d \ell## so calculating this won't give you potential energy.
It doesn't matter about the actual constant, I just wanted to get the integral right. if ##d\ell = ad\theta## is a small segment of string around the pulley and at a height ##\ell## above the axle. Then ##dU = \rho d\ell g \ell = \rho a d\theta g \ell## is its potential energy contribution. Then I would integrate from 0 to pi, to give $$U = \rho a g \int_{0}^{\pi} l(\theta) \text{d}\theta = \rho g a( λ(\pi) - λ(0)) = \text{const}$$##λ## is the antiderivative of ##\ell##. Is that right?
 
  • #10
CAF123 said:
Let me just check the notation - that is a delta function there?
yep, yeah, it looks a little bit weird because I put the argument in subscript for some reason.

CAF123 said:
It doesn't matter about the actual constant, I just wanted to get the integral right. if ##d\ell = ad\theta## is a small segment of string around the pulley and at a height ##\ell## above the axle. Then ##dU = \rho d\ell g \ell = \rho a d\theta g \ell## is its potential energy contribution. Then I would integrate from 0 to pi, to give $$U = \rho a g \int_{0}^{\pi} l(\theta) \text{d}\theta = \rho g a( λ(\pi) - λ(0)) = \text{const}$$##λ## is the antiderivative of ##\ell##. Is that right?
yeah, that looks good to me. Of course, ##d \ell## is not the differential of ##\ell## so the notation is a little confusing. So could use ##dS## instead (just to change notation), then it all looks good.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #11
Dumb says as dumb does:
can't V be simply (l-l') M/L times g times (l+l')/2 ?
First factor is the excess mass on one side
Last factor is its (fixed) center-of-mass position

Re-expressing in the (one single) generalized coordinate l (which was already part of the problem statement !) gives something proportional to l plus something constant.
 
  • #12
BruceW said:
That's not quite right still. But maybe it's best not to dwell on this stuff... It is a 2d problem, and the vertical section of string essentially has a mass per area ##\delta_{(x-a)} \rho## So the 2d equation is ##dU=\delta_{(x-a)} \rho y dx dy## when we integrate over x, we simply get to your equation ##dU=\rho y dy##. So I think you intuitively skipped this first step. Which is not surprising, since teachers skip these kinds of steps all the time. But I think sometimes it's nice to recognise these kinds of steps.
Could you explain why you used a delta function there and the need for integrating over x?
 
  • #13
it's a 2d problem, so what's the correct general equation for 2d? and our mass distribution in 2d is a very thin piece of string hanging vertically, so what is the equation for the mass distribution in this case? I said maybe it's not so useful to dwell on this kind of stuff, but I think it's important to recognise this is a 2d problem. So the starting point for this problem is generally to use 2d equations, and then later you reduce to an effectively 1d problem.
 
  • #14
Dumb speaking up again: Why nor 3D instead of 2D ? From the exercise formulation I like to think they want a 1D approach...
Am I just lazy, or is there any clue that it should be 2D instead of 3 or 1 ?
 
  • #15
you have to think in at least 2d at the start. the problem reduces to an effectively 1d problem. But that will not always happen generally, so you must start by thinking in 2d. For example, if we allowed the end of the string to move over the pulley, then you would need to use 2d.
 

1. What is the Lagrangian of a pulley system?

The Lagrangian of a pulley system is a mathematical expression that describes the total energy of the system in terms of its position and velocity. It takes into account both the kinetic energy (energy of motion) and potential energy (energy due to position) of the system.

2. How is the Lagrangian of a pulley system calculated?

The Lagrangian of a pulley system is calculated using the Lagrangian mechanics approach, which involves writing down the kinetic and potential energy of each component of the system and then using the Euler-Lagrange equation to find the equations of motion. These equations can then be solved to obtain the Lagrangian of the system.

3. What are the advantages of using the Lagrangian approach for analyzing pulley systems?

The Lagrangian approach offers several advantages for analyzing pulley systems. It provides a systematic and elegant framework for solving complex problems, it takes into account both kinetic and potential energy of the system, and it can be used to derive the equations of motion for multiple degrees of freedom.

4. Can the Lagrangian of a pulley system be used to determine the stability of the system?

Yes, the Lagrangian of a pulley system can be used to determine the stability of the system by analyzing the behavior of the equations of motion. If the system is in a stable equilibrium, small perturbations will result in small oscillations around the equilibrium position. However, if the system is in an unstable equilibrium, small perturbations will cause the system to diverge from the equilibrium position.

5. Are there any limitations to using the Lagrangian approach for analyzing pulley systems?

While the Lagrangian approach is a powerful tool for analyzing pulley systems, it does have some limitations. It assumes that the system is conservative (i.e. there is no energy loss due to friction or other forces), and it may not be suitable for analyzing systems with non-rigid components or complex geometries. In these cases, other methods such as numerical simulations may be more appropriate.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
0
Views
602
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
975
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
729
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
885
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top