- #36
sysprog
- 2,617
- 1,795
A.T. said:
I would like to see the input to the simulation; not just the resulting simulation ##-## please post something that includes the full set of parameters.
Last edited:
A.T. said:
It's probably necessary to delay the small angle approximation until at least we have the E-L equations. This gives:Dale said:To simplify this a bit, I will assume that ##\theta## is small, so ##\cos(\theta)=1## and ##\sin(\theta)=\theta##. So the new Lagrangian with the extra degree of freedom is $$L=m r \left(g+\dot \theta \dot x\right)+\frac{1}{2} (2 m+M) \dot x^2+m (\theta+1) \dot r
\dot x+m \dot r^2+\frac{1}{2} m r^2 \dot \theta^2 $$ I would not mind at all if someone could check this. Even with the small angle approximation it is a pretty hairy Lagrangian.
The Euler Lagrange equations are: $$ -(2 m+M) \ddot x-m (\theta +1) \ddot r-2 m \dot r \dot \theta -m r \ddot \theta =0$$ $$ m \left(g-2 \ddot r+r \dot \theta ^2-\theta \ddot x-\ddot x\right)=0 $$ $$ -m r \left(2 \dot r \dot \theta +r(t) \ddot \theta +\ddot x\right)=0 $$
It has the right qualitative behavior. The falling block never moves rightward. It does (eventually) move leftward. The big block accelerates away leftward starting immediately.sysprog said:I would like to see the input to the simulation; not just the resulting simulation ##-## please post something that includes the full set of parameters.
sysprog said:I would like to see the input to the simulation; not just the resulting simulation ##-## please post something that includes the full set of parameters.
I thought of falling m as a pendulum bob, that started swinging, driven by big M moving sideways. As a pendulum, the period of oscillation is increasing as the string lengthens, and it can only swing through half a cycle before falling m collides with big M.jbriggs444 said:The big block accelerates away leftward starting immediately.
My analysis shows that it tends to a fixed angle determined by ##\frac M m##. It doesn't oscillate. See also AT's simulation.Baluncore said:I thought of falling m as a pendulum bob, that started swinging, driven by big M moving sideways. As a pendulum, the period of oscillation is increasing as the string lengthens, and it can only swing through half a cycle before falling m collides with big M.
Given sufficient string will that collision ever occur before it runs out of string? Or will the period lengthen at a rate that prevents the collision until after it runs out of string?
How do I check the parameters?A.T. said:There you can check and change all the parameters.
In Windows you right click on objects. Then under Material you have mass and friction.sysprog said:How do I check the parameters?
If falling ##m## doesn't move leftward exactly when and as much as the pulley does, but at some ##t>0## time later it does move leftward (unlike as in @A.T.'s simulation, in which it tilts so as to maintain topwise orthogonality wrt the string, but is somehow constrained to not swing leftward, despite the leftward movement of the pulley from which it is hanging), then when does it do that, and if then, why then? If it's not the case that it never moves leftward, then why wouldn't it move leftward immediately as ##M## and the pully do, given that the pulley moves leftward only as driven by the descent of falling ##m##?Baluncore said:I thought of falling m as a pendulum bob, that started swinging, driven by big M moving sideways.
Gravity acts on the hanging mass as soon as it is released. There is a non-zero acceleration at time ##t= 0##. If we drew a graph of the acceleration it would start at some value such as ##g/3## or something like that.sysprog said:If falling ##m## doesn't move leftward exactly when and as much as the pulley does, but at some ##t>0## time later it does move leftward (unlike as in @A.T.'s simulation, in which it tilts so as to maintain topwise orthogonality wrt the string, but is somehow constrained to not swing leftward, despite the leftward movement of the pulley from which it is hanging), then when does it do that, and if then, why then? If it's not the case that it never moves leftward, then why wouldn't it move leftward immediately as ##M## and the pully do, given that the pulley moves leftward only as driven by the descent of falling ##m##?
It moves leftward. Look at the animation and note where it ends up relative to the vertical grid line it started on.sysprog said:If it's not the case that it never moves leftward,
For the hanging mass:sysprog said:then why wouldn't it move leftward immediately
Note that it is mathematically possible to have an displacement over time graph with in which all derivatives are zero but in which displacement is nonetheless only zero exactly at ##t=0##.A.T. said:But the above doesn't mean that the all the further derivatives of horizontal position (jerk, snap, crackle, pop) are also zero.
Thanks for the correction. I still have to finish mulling over over the consequences ##-## I think that I will probably soon wind up owing you, and @jbriggs444, @PeroK, @Dale, @berkeman, @PeterDonis, @Baluncore, @jedishrfu, and others, a big apology for my hard-headedness, and a big thank you for your patience and efforts.A.T. said:It moves leftward. Look at the animation and note where it ends up relative to the vertical grid line it started on.For the hanging mass:
- initial horizontal velocity is zero.
- initial horizontal acceleration is zero (because the string is vertical)
But the above doesn't mean that all the further derivatives of horizontal position (jerk, snap, crackle, pop) are also zero. So it starts out moving horizontally very gently.
No need for the apology from my perspective, but a thank you is always well received!sysprog said:big apology for my hard-headedness, and a big thank you for your patience and efforts.
(for the record, I think all I contributed to this very interesting thread was fixing up the thread title early on...)sysprog said:I still have to finish mulling over over the consequences I think that I will probably soon wind up owing you, and @jbriggs444, @PeroK, @Dale, @berkeman, @PeterDonis,@ @Baluncore, @jedishrfu, and others
Yes, but as @jbriggs444 notes in post#49, even all derivatives being zero at some point, doesn't imply the function is constant. The intuitive cause-effect interpretation of calculus (f' causes f to change) is not generally applicable.sysprog said:I recognize and acknowledge that a higher derivative can be nonzero when a lower one is zero, e.g. jounce/snap nonzero when velocity, acceleration, and jerk are all zero:
Doesn't the falling block move leftward immediately, even if not as much as the big block with the pulley?jbriggs444 said:It has the right qualitative behavior. The falling block never moves rightward. It does (eventually) move leftward. The big block accelerates away leftward starting immediately.
Yes. In theory, everything starts to integrate at the instant; t = 0. The falling m block will not begin to accelerate horizontally until after the big M block has first moved ahead.sysprog said:Doesn't the falling block move leftward immediately, even if not as much as the big block with the pulley?
Isn't that 'after' no later than infinitesimally after? Don't both masses commence to move leftward exactly as soon as ##T>0##?Baluncore said:Yes. In theory, everything starts to integrate at the instant; t = 0. The falling m block will not begin to accelerate horizontally until after the big M block has first moved ahead.
The falling m block accelerates at a zero rate initially, very much lower than the big M block, so it lags behind the big M block until the big M block has begun to move sufficiently far ahead for the falling m block to follow.
Yes. All the plots of acceleration, velocity and position pass through the origin at t = 0.sysprog said:Don't both masses commence to move leftward exactly as soon as T > 0 ?
What about at ##t=0+\omega##? Isn't the leftward acceleration of ##m## at that point also greater than zero? I think that at any ##t>0## the leftward acceleration of falling ##m## is also greater than zero. Do you agree with that?Baluncore said:Yes. All the plots of acceleration, velocity and position pass through the origin at t = 0.
On release at t = 0, the big M block gains a fixed acceleration.
At t = 0, the falling m block has zero horizontal acceleration.
What you're doing now is simply wrestling with the fundamental concept of calculus and continuous change. There is no smallest number greater than zero. So, there is no finite initial time during which the block does not move. But, that is not mathematically incompatible with an initial velocity and initial acceleration of zero.sysprog said:Isn't that 'after' no later than infinitesimally after? Don't both masses commence to move leftward exactly as soon as ##T>0##?
PeroK said:The small angle approximation is, of course$$\theta = \frac{1}{2\mu + 1}$$I can't prove, however, that the solution tends asymptotically to that equilibrium angle.
I get $$\mu= \frac{1}{2} (1- \sin(\theta)) \cot(\theta)$$I got that two different ways. Initially by an analysis of forces looking for a constant angle. Then, by using the E-L equations with constant angle.A.T. said:I assumed that (in the rest frame of M) the sum of gravity and inertial force on the hanging m is parallel to the string. This lead me to the following relationship:
$$\mu= \frac{1}{2} \: cos(\theta) \: cot(\theta)$$
The full formula above does this. But not, of course, the small angle approximation.A.T. said:I think it makes more sense that when μ goes to 0, then θ approaches π/2
Yours also agrees better with the simulation. So I guess I made an error somewhere.PeroK said:I get $$\mu= \frac{1}{2} (1- \sin(\theta)) \cot(\theta)$$I got that two different ways. Initially by an analysis of forces looking for a constant angle. Then, by using the E-L equations with constant angle.
I didn't mean to suggest that I thought there to be such a thing as a least number among the positive reals; mea culpa for any notional abuse on my part; I am not at odds with the fundamental theorem of calculus, and I accept the epsilon-delta definition of limits, as described here: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epsilon-DeltaDefinition.html.PeroK said:There is no smallest number greater than zero.
and this statement of mine:PeroK said:So, there is no finite initial time during which the block does not move.
That seeems to me to be obscured in some aspects of the following exchange:sysprog said:I think that at any ##t>0## the leftward acceleration of falling ##m## is also greater than zero.
and @Baluncore posted:sysprog said:Isn't the leftward acceleration of ##m## at that point also greater than zero? I think that at any ##t>0## the leftward acceleration of falling ##m## is also greater than zero. Do you agree with that?
I think that "on release at t = 0" might be more clearly expressed as "immediately at ##t>0##", and similarly, I think that the hanging ##m## block isn't rightly called "falling" until ##t>0##. However, I think that the first sentence of @Baluncore's response is abundantly clear: he said "Yes" to the question.Baluncore said:Yes. All the plots of acceleration, velocity and position pass through the origin at t = 0.sysprog said:Isn't the leftward acceleration of ##m## at that point also greater than zero?
On release at t = 0, the big M block gains a fixed acceleration.
At t = 0, the falling m block has zero horizontal acceleration.