Normal Force of a hoop rolling down an inclined plane.

mercrave
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I have a question from my homework. My homework is completed, but I've been running some thought experiments lately and I wish to conceptually discuss this.

The problem has to do with a hoop rolling down an inclined plane. I had to find the Normal Force using Lagrange's Equations.

Hoop has mass M, radius R, the hypotenuse of the incline is L and the angle from the bottom of the incline is α.

Homework Equations



I'm not sure what to place here, but I have set my origin to be at the tip of the inclined plane, and my x-axis lies parallel to the bottom of the incline whereas the y-axis is perpendicular to my x-axis. I have set θ to be the angle through which the hoop rotates.

The Attempt at a Solution



When all is said and done I get the following (the ' refers to a time derivative);

T = .5 m x'2 + .5 m y'2 + .5 m R2 θ'2
U = mgy
g1[x,y,θ] = y - x Tan[α] (= 0)<- hoop has to stay on the plane
g2[x,y,θ] = L - x Sec[α] - Rθ (= 0) <- hoop is rolling without slipping (L - x Sec[α] therefore refers to the portion of the plane that is traversed by the hoop)

I plug into Lagrange's equations and obtain the following;
λ1 = .5 mg(1+Cos2[α]) (normal force)
λ2 = -.5 mg Sin[α] (acceleration down the incline)

I did some checks in my head for the normal force; at α = .5\pi, we have -.5 mg for acceleration down the incline and normal force is at a minimum (.5 mg) whereas at α = 0, no acceleration and the normal force is effectively the mass of the hoop.

I am basically wondering if this is correct. My thought process right now is that hypothetically, it can roll down a .5\pi incline, and to do that it requires a frictional force which then requires a normal force. It also means that it effectively doesn't roll when there is no incline (flat surface) so normal force is at a maximum and it is just supporting the hoop. Am I correct in thinking so?

Thank you very much, and I hope to hear from you. I am fairly confident in my answer, but my friends get conflicting results (notably, they get mgCos[α] for the normal force, which makes sense to me to some extent until we factor in the rolling) and we were supposedly supposed to recognize this other force. It could be possible that I need to find the x and y components of this force using the constraints on Lagrange's Equation's and probably find the magnitude to round it off, but I'm just curious to hear what everyone here thinks.

Great forum by the way, it has helped me through numerous homeworks in the past!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mercrave said:
they get mgCos[α] for the normal force, which makes sense to me to some extent until we factor in the rolling
Why would the rolling make it otherwise? That adds a frictional force up the slope, so has no effect on the normal force. Maybe you could post your working.
 
I basically took double-time derivatives of each of the first two constraints, then used lagranges equations alongside them. My friends and I all double checked lagranges equations, so at this point I am wondering if the constraints are the issue or, better yet, the lagrangian?

It also helped that all algebra we did was performed on Mathematica.

Also, I thought rolling friction was normal force dependent even still.
 
mercrave said:
When all is said and done I get the following (the ' refers to a time derivative);

T = .5 m x'2 + .5 m y'2 + .5 m R2 θ'2
U = mgy
g1[x,y,θ] = y - x Tan[α] (= 0)<- hoop has to stay on the plane
g2[x,y,θ] = L - x Sec[α] - Rθ (= 0) <- hoop is rolling without slipping (L - x Sec[α] therefore refers to the portion of the plane that is traversed by the hoop)

I plug into Lagrange's equations and obtain the following;
λ1 = .5 mg(1+Cos2[α]) (normal force)
λ2 = -.5 mg Sin[α] (acceleration down the incline)

I get the same expressions for the lagrange multipliers λ1 and λ2.

But λ1 does not represent the normal force. Note that in setting up your constraint g2[x,y,θ] for rolling without slipping, you invoked the constraint g1[x,y,θ] to get the x Sec[α] part. So, both g1 and g2 include the constraint to stay on the plane.

You can find the normal component of each of the constraint forces. For example, the normal component of the constraint force associated with g1 is

##\lambda_1\frac{\partial{g_1}}{\partial n}=\lambda_1 (\frac{\partial{g_1}}{\partial x}\frac{\partial{x}}{\partial n}+\frac{\partial{g_1}}{\partial y}\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial n} ) = \lambda_1 (-\frac{\partial{g_1}}{\partial x}sin\alpha+\frac{\partial{g_1}}{\partial y}cos\alpha )##

where ##n## indicates normal direction. Similarly you can find the normal component of the force due to the second constraint. If you add the two normal components from the two constraints, you should get the total normal force.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top