Why Do We Use \(\ell + r\theta\) in Polar Coordinates for Analytical Mechanics?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the use of \(\ell + r\theta\) in polar coordinates within analytical mechanics. The length between the tangency point and the top is expressed as \(\ell + r\theta\) because \(\ell\) represents the initial vertical length and \(r\theta\) accounts for the arc length as the angle \(\theta\) changes. The kinetic energy formula \(T = \frac{1}{2} m(\ell + r\theta)^2 \dot{\theta}^2\) incorporates this length to reflect the total distance traveled by the mass in motion. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding geometric relationships in mechanics, particularly for students grappling with these concepts. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for clarity in the application of polar coordinates in analytical mechanics.
TheDestroyer
Messages
401
Reaction score
1
Thanks for integral, he made the potential.pdf analyse for an analytical mechanic but i still have 2 questions,

1- Why does the length up between the tengency point and top of (h) equals:

\ell + r\theta ?

2- Why the kinetic energy here equals:

T = \frac{1}{2} m(\ell + r\theta)^2 \dot{\theta}^2 ?

I mean why we replaced R with \ell + r\theta in the polar coordinates?

Thanks,

TheDestroyer
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
r \theta is the arc length corresponding to the angle \theta Notice that if you let \theta = 2 \pi you get the circumference of the circle.

As you unwind the rope moving the point of tangency through an angle \theta you add the corresponding arc length ( r \theta to the length of rope l which is initially hanging stright down.

I need some time to look at the kinetic engery term. I concentrated on the potential energy term and have not looked into the kinetic energy. I'll get back to you, if no one else contributes.
 
Last edited:
about the r\theta i know it's the arc length (LOL I'm a second year university physics student), but the question is why does it equal to \ell + r\theta in the tangent,

I didn't understand integral, I'm very sorry, please explain it as a math geometric laws, And try using a simple language (I don't mean you language was complicated),

And thanks very much
 
Why no body is answeringgggg?
 
You say you are a second year university student. Did you ever learn to ride a bike? Do you remember the the first time you were given a push and told to pedal.

There is nothing left in this problem which you should not be able to figure out on your own. Please study the diagram I drew for you and think about it. YOU CAN figure it out. Get 'er done
 
.......
 
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