Period of simple orbit in central potential

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the period of revolution T and the area A of an orbit in a central potential, as presented in Symon's 'Mechanics'. The formula T = 2Am/L is questioned for its accuracy, with alternative derivations proposed that involve integrating the area swept out over time. A key point raised is the distinction between the area of a triangle and the area of a circular section, which affects the calculations. The conversation highlights the need to consider the changing radius and the implications for angular momentum, suggesting that the moment of inertia should be treated as a tensor when the radius is not constant. The discussion emphasizes the complexity of deriving the correct relationship between these physical quantities.
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
In Symon's book 'Mechanics', he writes that for a body of mass m and angular momentum L in an orbit that does not intersect itself (i.e. a simple curve), the period of revolution T is related to the area A of the orbit by

T=\frac{2Am}{L}

Is this exact as he seems to be implying? It seems to me that the correct formula would be obtained by considering the area S of a section of circle, and saying that the area of the orbit is related to the period of revolution by

A=\int_0^T \frac{dS}{dt}dt = \int_0^T \frac{1}{2}r^2 \frac{d\theta}{dt}dt + \int_0^T \theta r\frac{dr}{dt}dt = \frac{L}{2m}\int_0^T dt + \int_0^T \theta r\frac{dr}{dt}dt = \frac{LT}{2m} + \int_0^T \theta r\frac{dr}{dt}dt

Am I missing something?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
quasar987 said:
In Symon's book 'Mechanics', he writes that for a body of mass m and angular momentum L in an orbit that does not intersect itself (i.e. a simple curve), the period of revolution T is related to the area A of the orbit by

T=\frac{2Am}{L}

Is this exact as he seems to be implying? It seems to me that the correct formula would be obtained by considering the area S of a section of circle, and saying that the area of the orbit is related to the period of revolution by

A=\int_0^T \frac{dS}{dt}dt = \int_0^T \frac{1}{2}r^2 \frac{d\theta}{dt}dt + \int_0^T \theta r\frac{dr}{dt}dt = \frac{L}{2m}\int_0^T dt + \int_0^T \theta r\frac{dr}{dt}dt = \frac{LT}{2m} + \int_0^T \theta r\frac{dr}{dt}dt

Am I missing something?
The element of area swept out in time dt, where the radius is changing is not a right triangle. So the area dS is not 1/2 rdr. The area is 1/2 rdr sin\beta where \beta is the angle that d\vec r makes to \vec r. In other words dS = 1/2 \vec r \times \vec{dr}

Since:L = m\frac{d\vec{r}}{dt}\times \vec{r}:

Area = \int_0^T \frac{dS}{dt}dt = \int_0^T \frac{1}{2}\vec{r}\times \frac{d\vec{r}}{dt}dt = \int_0^T \frac{L}{2m}dt = \frac{LT}{2m}

AM
 
Last edited:
I see what you're doing. You're taking S as the area of a triangle, while I was taking S as the area of a section. I figure since the area of a section subtended by and angle \theta is

S = \frac{1}{2}\theta r^2

then

\frac{dS}{dt}=\frac{1}{2}r^2 \frac{d\theta}{dt} + r\frac{dr}{dt}\theta

Why is this wrong?
 
i think the problem probably is, in your derivation you assumed that:

\vec{L}=\frac{1}{2}mr^2\frac{d\theta}{dt}
which isn't valid when r is not constant. the moment of inertia should become a tensor quantity. Since in the above derivation, it is assumed that v=\omega r, however, when r is not constant, omeaga should be:
\omega=\frac{\vec{r}\times{\vec{v}}}{r^2}
 
Last edited:
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top