Marion and Thornton Dynamics Problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter MARX
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamics
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a dynamics problem involving two blocks connected by a string, with one block on a horizontal surface and the other hanging over a pulley. The problem requires analyzing the potential energy of the system, particularly focusing on the effects of the string's mass.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the calculation of potential energy and question the sign conventions used in their equations. There is discussion about integrating to find potential energy and the implications of different integration boundaries.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with each other's reasoning, providing clarifications and corrections regarding the setup of the problem and the integration process. Some guidance has been offered on how to express potential energy in terms of the center of mass's height, and there is a recognition of the importance of sign conventions in the calculations.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the integration boundaries and the definitions of positive and negative directions in the context of potential energy calculations. The participants are self-learning and are encouraged to explore their reasoning without relying solely on memorized methods.

MARX
Messages
49
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


PROBLEM 7-10[/B]
Two blocks, each of mass M, are connected by an extensionless, uniform string of length l. One block is placed on a smooth horizontal surface, and the other block hangs over the side, the string passing over a frictionless pulley. Describe the motion of the system when the string has a mass m.

Homework Equations


L = T -U

The Attempt at a Solution


NOT HOMEWORK I AM SELF LEARNING
I did solve this question but I have a sign ambiguity in U
U= -Mgy- ∫ (m/l)dy*g*y
in the solutions second term in Lagrangian is negative
mine positive
where did I go wrong isit because U = -W and my integral represents work (∫ F.dx) so I have to flip sign of U
just want to make sure
THanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello again
Note that y upward is positive. So y itself is negative. If they wrote ##U = Mgy - {m\over l}yg{y\over 2} \ ## it might be a bit clearer.
In your case it might have to do with the integration boundaries ?
 
The integrals are not needed. Express the potential energy in terms of center of mass's height
 
They did write it the way you said
is the 1/2 factor because the center of mass of the y piece below is at y/2
ok let's define y>0, U = -Mgy+(m/l)*(y)*g*(-y/2) correct?
how about my way-I wanted to integrate F to get U (I am in the habit of calculating things from scratch-to an extent-without memorizing)
my bounds are 0 to y as that dy piece of the rope descended y below x-axis no?
 
MARX said:
They did write it the way you said
is the 1/2 factor because the center of mass of the y piece below is at y/2
ok let's define y>0, U = -Mgy+(m/l)*(y)*g*(-y/2) correct?
how about my way-I wanted to integrate F to get U (I am in the habit of calculating things from scratch-to an extent-without memorizing)
my bounds are 0 to y as that dy piece of the rope descended y below x-axis no?
BvU said:
Hello again
Note that y upward is positive. So y itself is negative. If they wrote ##U = Mgy - {m\over l}yg{y\over 2} \ ## it might be a bit clearer.
In your case it might have to do with the integration boundaries ?
Helloooo to you as well
and thanks so much for your help
 
CORRECTION:
They did write it the way you said
is the 1/2 factor because the center of mass of the y piece below is at y/2
ok let's define y>0, U = -Mgy+(m/l)*(y)*g*(-y/2) correct?
how about my way-I wanted to integrate F to get U (I am in the habit of calculating things from scratch-to an extent-without memorizing)
my bounds are 0 to -y as that dy piece of the rope descended y BELOW x-axis no?
 
MARX said:
CORRECTION:
They did write it the way you said. Is the 1/2 factor because the center of mass of the y piece below is at y/2?
Yes.

ok, let's define y>0, U = -Mgy+(m/l)*(y)*g*(-y/2) correct?
Yes.

how about my way-I wanted to integrate F to get U (I am in the habit of calculating things from scratch-to an extent-without memorizing)
my bounds are 0 to -y as that dy piece of the rope descended y BELOW x-axis no?
I wouldn't do it that way. Say you define the positive direction to be downward. The top of the string would be at y=0 and the bottom at y=L, where L>0 is the length of the string hanging down. The mass of an infinitesimal piece of the string would be ##dm = (m/l)dy##. If you integrate from y=0 to y=L, then dy>0 and dm>0, which is what you want for a mass. The potential energy of that piece of the string is ##dU = dm\,g (-y)##. The negative sign comes in because you need the potential energy to decrease as y increases. Put it all together and you get
$$U = \int_0^L (-y) g \left(\frac m l \right) dy $$
If you choose the other sign convention so that you integrate from y=0 to y=-L, then dy<0 so you want dm = -(m/l)dy so that dm>0. You no longer need the other minus sign though because the potential energy decreases when y decreases with this sign convention. So you get
$$U = \int_0^{-L} y g \left[-\left(\frac m l \right) dy\right].$$ Note if you change variables from ##y \to u=-y## in this second integral, you get the first integral.
 
vela said:
Yes.Yes.I wouldn't do it that way. Say you define the positive direction to be downward. The top of the string would be at y=0 and the bottom at y=L, where L>0 is the length of the string hanging down. The mass of an infinitesimal piece of the string would be ##dm = (m/l)dy##. If you integrate from y=0 to y=L, then dy>0 and dm>0, which is what you want for a mass. The potential energy of that piece of the string is ##dU = dm\,g (-y)##. The negative sign comes in because you need the potential energy to decrease as y increases. Put it all together and you get
$$U = \int_0^L (-y) g \left(\frac m l \right) dy $$
If you choose the other sign convention so that you integrate from y=0 to y=-L, then dy<0 so you want dm = -(m/l)dy so that dm>0. You no longer need the other minus sign though because the potential energy decreases when y decreases with this sign convention. So you get
$$U = \int_0^{-L} y g \left[-\left(\frac m l \right) dy\right].$$ Note if you change variables from ##y \to u=-y## in this second integral, you get the first integral.
Amazing great understood thanks so much every time I get a clear cut explanation like this here I know my physics is improving tremendously!
What do you think of this book I am learning mechanics from? good? the problems are tough I like them they enforce understanding!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
From what I've seen it's a good book !
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K