Potential of 2 Orbiting Objects in Rotating Frame

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the potential of two orbiting objects in a rotating frame, focusing on deriving the potential from forces including gravitational, Coriolis, and centrifugal terms. The author expresses difficulty in formulating the potential and handling the velocity term, seeking clarification on how to express the velocity in terms of coordinates and how to integrate to find the potential. There's a suggestion to explore an alternative method involving equations of motion in a non-rotating frame for stability analysis, which the author has previously used successfully. Additionally, questions arise regarding the derivation of specific equations related to effective potential and discrepancies with classical mechanics texts. The conversation highlights the complexities of analyzing stability at Lagrange points in a rotating frame.
E92M3
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
I would like to express the potential of 2 orbiting objects in the rotating frame, but I'm not quite doing it right. I am a physics major but since I took AP, my mechanics is quite bad. Here's what I'm doing, please tell me what am I missing.

First, I consider two objects denoted with 1 and 2 with circular orbits around their common center of mass. When I in the rotating frame where the origin is the common center of mass, objects 1 and 2 are both on the y-axis at a and -b respectively. I don't know how to write the potential for the Coriolis and centrifugal terms; however, I can indeed write the accleration and thus the force. I would like to eventually recover the potential through:

\vec{F}(x,y)=-\nabla V(x,y)

If I now consider a mass m at an arbitary point, I can write the following:

\vec{F_{net}}=\vec{F_{g,1}}+\vec{F_{g,2}}+\vec{F_{Coriolis}}+\vec{F_{centrifugal}}+\vec{F_{azimuthal}}

Dividing by the mass m on both sides I get:

\vec{a}(x,y)=\frac{-Gm_1}{x^2+(y-a)^2}-\frac{Gm_2}{x^2+(y+b)^2}-\vec{\omega}\times (\vec{\omega}\times \vec{r})-2\vec{\omega}\times \dot{\vec{r}}+\dot{\vec{\omega}}\times \vec{r}

The last term is zero since there is no change in omega, namely the angular velocity. The centrifugal term can also be simplified. Since the vector r always points outwards nd the angular velocity always points in the z-direction. After taking care of the minus sign and defining r in terms of x and y I get:

\vec{a}(x,y)=\frac{-Gm_1}{x^2+(y-a)^2}-\frac{Gm_2}{x^2+(y+b)^2}+\omega^2\sqrt{x^2+y^2}-2\vec{\omega}\times \dot{\vec{r}}

Now here are my problems:

How can I handle
\dot{\vec{r}}

How can I write it it terms of x and y?

Then to find V(x,y), can I just do:

V(x,y)=\int\int\vec{F}(x,y)dxdy

If this is correct then how do I get the constant that should fall out when I do the integral? As I on the right track? All I am trying to to is to look at the stability at the Lagarange points. Should I persuit another path? Is there another way to obtain the potential?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
There are other ways to investigate the stability that I know- instead of finding the potential field, you can write the equations of motion in a non-rotating frame for the third body, and then perform a coordinate transformation which (like you say) keeps the two massive bodies on the axis. After some manipulation all the explicit time dependences fall out (though time derivatives are still abundant). With this equation you can performs a typical stability analysis, by replacing the position with the known stationary solution (equilateral triangles, right?), plus a small perturbation. You can then expand these in your equations of motion in the rotating frame, and after a (considerable) amount of calculation, you will be able to factor the resulting equation and find the limit of stability, where some roots go imaginary.I write all this because I did the exact same thing for my dissertation last year, and did quite well, but I did not use the method you are using with regards to energy. By the way, your final velocity term cannot be simplified as it is the Coriolis force! It does not affect the stationary points but will affect the stability of them.

In the end, you should find that for some mass ratios (of the two big bodies), the perturbations oscillate (with different periods in different directions, leading to some cool shapes), but after a certain critical ratio stability breaks down. But I am not saying that this is the wrong route, just that there is a pure algebraic route that I know works neatly. I warn you: it took me a few days to work through, you might want to find a computer package to do some of the more complicated transformations.

I'm pretty interested in this stuff so let me know if you need any more help- but bear in mind I did no energy analysis at all, and didn't focus on potential fields at all (though some treatment exists on a page I remember, http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/ContentMedia/lagrange.pdf)
 
The link was very useful indeed, but there's still something I don'quite get. How did they come up with equation 5?
U=U_g-\frac{d\vec{r}}{dt}(\vec{\omega}\times\vec{r})+\frac{1}{2}(\vec{\omega}\times\vec{r})^2
  1. Where did this come from?
  2. What happened to the small "m" which is required to get units of energy?
  3. Why does it differ from this classical mechanics text http://books.google.com/books?id=1k...ffective potential of coriolis force&f=false"? Even if you say that the coriolis term is included in V, why does the sign of the centrifugal term differ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top