A Principle of Virtual Work and the forces that DO NOT do work

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around using Hamilton's principle and the principle of virtual work (PVW) to analyze a linkage system with motors and gravity. The user seeks clarification on how to determine four reaction forces at the base that do no work, despite successfully computing motion using PVW. They express frustration that textbooks often overlook the process of calculating these reaction forces, only mentioning that they can be ignored. The user ultimately finds a solution by applying Newton's third law to derive equations for the support and interaction forces. They acknowledge the alternative method of using Lagrange multipliers but have not yet explored that approach.
Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
How do you get the reaction forces that do no work
In this 2D figure below, I can place:

  • a motor at O
  • a motor at J
  • gravity on each link

I can use Hamilton's principle, modified to the principle of virtual work and I can compute the motion of the linkage system.

I do not have to account for these force FOUR forces (in this planar problem):
  1. 2 Reaction forces at O (they do no work)
  2. 2 Reaction forces at J (they do no work)
I have no difficulty with the previous work, above... The next part, counfounds me, and I ask for help.

However, how would I find those four reaction forces that do no work?

Would I first have to solve the entire problem using PVW, get the velocity, acceleration, angular velocity and angular acceleration?

And then, return to free body diagrams, and with the kinematics and inertial terms (mass and moment of inertia), go back and mathematically deduce what those forces SHOULD be?

How does software do it?

I have never seen a textbook discuss this. They just blithely (sometimes smugly) pronounce the power of PVW as being able to ignore forces that do no work (which is true and wonderful), but they never present a systematic way to go back and get those other forces that do no work.UNLESS: they enter as constraints, brought in by Lagrange multipliers. If so, then I must research that, alone (before bothering any of you--you have all been patient). However, in the absence of having to use that formality, how would YOU solve for these reaction forces that do no work? Can someone start me off so that I can then teach myself the Lagrange multipliers?
 

Attachments

  • PVW.JPG
    PVW.JPG
    8.8 KB · Views: 167
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have changed my mind. This is a stupid question and the solution is simple. I am sorry for having wasted the time of some of you.
 
Trying2Learn said:
This is a stupid question and the solution is simple.
Why?
What that simple solution would be?
 
Lnewqban said:
Why?
What that simple solution would be?
Oh

THE FIRST PART: is that I use Principle of Virtual Work (PVW and calc.variations) and Generalized coordinates, and I find the angles and the motion. That was not my issue, though.

MY issue was now to get the reaction forces at the base, and between the two arms.

I was confused.

So I spent some time...

I cut the body up using Newton's third law (action and reaction) and get a series of equations for the support reaction forces and the interaction forces and I solved those, and I was done.

------------------------

I KNOW that it can ALSO be done by infusing the constraints directly with Lagrange multipliers, but I have never done that before.

What irritated me, is that most books just blithely state "we can solve for the motion by PVW since the reaction forces can be ignored (they do not work); but no book (at least the ones I have seen), takes the next step and shows you (Either by Free body Diagrams or Lagrange Multipliers) how to get the reactions.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top