Virtual work and kinetic energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of virtual work and kinetic energy within the framework of analytical mechanics. Participants explore the definitions and implications of virtual displacements and the relationship between virtual work and changes in kinetic energy, particularly in systems with multiple degrees of freedom.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of the equation relating total virtual work to changes in kinetic energy, noting that it fails when kinetic energy does not depend on generalized coordinates.
  • Another participant emphasizes that generalized velocities and coordinates are treated as independent variables in analytical mechanics.
  • A participant expresses confusion regarding partial derivatives and suggests a corrected formulation for kinetic energy that includes both generalized coordinates and velocities.
  • It is noted that for virtual displacements, the change in generalized velocities is zero, leading to further confusion about the implications for kinetic energy.
  • Some participants argue that virtual work does not solely contribute to changes in kinetic energy, referencing cases where it may relate to potential energy or internal energy changes.
  • A specific example involving a falling particle is presented, illustrating a contradiction when assuming virtual work equals the change in kinetic energy due to the lack of dependence on generalized coordinates.
  • Participants discuss the distinction between real and virtual displacements, particularly in the context of a falling particle, highlighting that virtual displacements do not involve changes in generalized velocities.
  • Concerns are raised about the compatibility of proposed virtual displacements with the laws of mechanics.
  • A request for clarification on the condition of system compatibility in relation to virtual displacements is made, along with a challenge to provide an example that satisfies this condition.
  • A link to an external resource is shared, presumably to aid in understanding the discussed concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between virtual work and kinetic energy, with no consensus reached on the validity of the initial equation or the implications of virtual displacements in specific examples.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of partial derivatives and the definitions of virtual work and displacements, which may affect their interpretations and conclusions.

dEdt
Messages
286
Reaction score
2
Question about analytical mechanics.

Suppose we have a system with N degrees of freedom, and hence N generalized coordinates {q_i}, \ i=1...N. A virtual displacement is defined as an infinitesimal change in a generalized coordinate without producing a change in the generalized velocities. Virtual work is defined as the work done by the acting forces as a result of any virtual displacement.

Suppose the total virtual work is \delta W and the virtual displacements are \delta q_i, \ i=1...N. I would expect then that
\delta W = \delta T = \sum_i \frac{\partial T}{\partial q_i}\delta q_i
where \delta T is the infinitesimal change in kinetic energy produced by the virtual work.

However, this is wrong. It's obviously incorrect in the cases that T doesn't depend on q_i, but only on \dot{q_i}, because then the right hand side of the above equation would be zero. So, what gives?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dEdt said:
Question about analytical mechanics.

Suppose we have a system with N degrees of freedom, and hence N generalized coordinates {q_i}, \ i=1...N

However, this is wrong. It's obviously incorrect in the cases that T doesn't depend on q_i, but only on \dot{q_i}, because then the right hand side of the above equation would be zero. So, what gives?

But \dot{q_i} and q_i are dependent through variable t.
 
Hassan2 said:
But \dot{q_i} and q_i are dependent through variable t.

They're treated as independent variables in analytical mechanics.
 
Thanks,

It's a confusion thing for me. I remember I had a discussion about this with my lecturer and in the end, I confessed that I have not understood " partial derivatives" properly. Now the misunderstanding is back again!

Ok. I think you should correct the equations as follows;

That is:

T=T(q_{1},q_{2},...,q_{n},\dot{q}_{1},\dot{q}_{2},...,\dot{q}_{n})

so

\delta T = \sum\frac{\partial T}{\partial q} \delta q +\sum\frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}} \delta \dot{q}
 
Hassan2 said:
That is:

T=T(q_{1},q_{2},...,q_{n},\dot{q}_{1},\dot{q}_{2},...,\dot{q}_{n})

so

\delta T = \sum\frac{\partial T}{\partial q} \delta q +\sum\frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{q}} \delta \dot{q}

Thing is, \delta\dot{q_i}=0 for a virtual displacement :/. That's why I'm confused: if T doesn't depend on q_i, then \delta T is automatically zero.
 
Last edited:
That means the work done on the system goes to potential energy then.
 
Hassan2 said:
That means the work done on the system goes to potential energy then.

I'm defining \delta W[\itex] to be the total work done on the system, including the work done by any conservative forces.
 
Hassan2 said:
That means the work done on the system goes to potential energy then.

Yes, I think your basic mistake is assuming that the virtual work all goes into kinetic energy.

For example the principle of virtual work also applies to statics problems where the KE is zero by definition. In that case the virtual work is balanced to the change in internal energy of the system (e.g internal force or stress) and the work done by external forces against the virtual displacements (including what you might describe as "gravitational potential energy", etc).
 
AlephZero said:
Yes, I think your basic mistake is assuming that the virtual work all goes into kinetic energy.

As above, I'm defining \delta W to include work done by conservative forces.

For clarity, I'll give a example.

Suppose we have a particle falling near the surface of the Earth. The three generalized coordinates will be the coordinates of the particle's position, x, y, z, in a coordinate system such that x is parallel to the surface, y is perpendicular, etc. The only force acting on the particle is Earth's gravity, \vec{F}=m\vec{g}=-mg\hat{y}. So, the virtual work done by a virtual displacement is \delta W = -mg\delta y.

Now, T=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2). There is no dependence on the generalized coordinates, so \delta T=\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\delta x+\frac{\partial T}{\partial y}\delta y+\frac{\partial T}{\partial z}\delta z=0. If \delta W=\delta T, it's easy to see that we have a contradiction.
 
  • #10
There is nothing virtual about your δW for a falling particle.
 
  • #11
Studiot said:
There is nothing virtual about your δW for a falling particle.

Could you please clarify?
 
  • #12
dEdt said:
Could you please clarify?

I think he/she is saying that the work in the case of a falling particle clearly cannot be virtual, because \delta \dot{y} \neq 0 in this case.

But then what do I know...I remember very little from Lagrangian mechanics.
 
  • #13
I think he/she is saying that the work in the case of a falling particle clearly cannot be virtual, because δy˙≠0 in this case.

Yes exactly. A falling particle is undergoing real y displacements.

A virtual displacement of such a particle would be δx or δz.
 
  • #14
cepheid said:
I think he/she is saying that the work in the case of a falling particle clearly cannot be virtual, because \delta \dot{y} \neq 0 in this case.

But then what do I know...I remember very little from Lagrangian mechanics.

Studiot said:
Yes exactly. A falling particle is undergoing real y displacements.

A virtual displacement of such a particle would be δx or δz.

I don't think I understand what your claim is.

By definition, a virtual displacement \delta q is never followed by a change in generalized velocity \delta\dot{q}. When we make a virtual displacement, what we're doing is freezing the system at some instant in time, and manually making some infinitesimal changes in the generalized coordinates PERIOD, without any changes in generalized velocities. This is true in the falling particle example as well: the virtual displacement \delta y is, by definition, not accompanied by a change in the \dot{y}.

Now, it IS true that if the system, running on its own accord, were to produce changes in the generalized coordinates, then \delta\dot{y}\neq 0. But that's different than a virtual displacement.
 
  • #15
All virtual displacements have to satisfy the condition of system compatibility, in addition to whichever mechanics laws you employ. Your proposed one does not.
 
  • #16
Studiot said:
All virtual displacements have to satisfy the condition of system compatibility, in addition to whichever mechanics laws you employ. Your proposed one does not.

Could you clarify what this means?

Or, better yet, give me a system that does satisfy the 'condition of system compatibility' and I'll show you that \delta W = \delta T doesn't work. I've tried it on other systems, including systems given in my textbook where virtual work and virtual displacements were used, and outcome was still wrong.
 
  • #18
dEdt said:
When we make a virtual displacement, what we're doing is freezing the system at some instant in time, and manually making some infinitesimal changes in the generalized coordinates PERIOD, without any changes in generalized velocities. [/itex].

For the falling object in your example, you need to apply a force in order to freeze the system. Shouldn't you take the force into account?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
360
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K