Why is F(tang) equal to -dU/ds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oijl
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the tangential force F(tang) is equal to -dU/ds for a bead moving along a wire in three-dimensional space. The normal force N constrains the bead, while other conservative forces can be expressed through potential energy U. The proof involves showing that the net conservative force is equal to the negative gradient of U, and the tangential component aligns with the tangential force. An alternative proof approach suggests using geometric relationships to express components along the wire's direction. The conversation highlights confusion around specific proof steps and the mathematical relationships involved.
Oijl
Messages
102
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


[[F(tang) means the tangential force]]
Consider a bead constrained to move on a tract curved in three-dimensional space, with the bead's position specified by its distance s, measured along the wire, from the origin.

One force on the bead is the normal force N of the wire (which constrains the bead to stay on the wire). If we assume that all other forces (gravity, etc.) are conservative, then their resultant can be derived from a potential energy U. Prove that F(tang) = -dU/ds. This shows that one-dimensional systems of this type can be treated just like linear systems, with x replaced by s and Fx by F(tang).


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I have before me a solution someone wrote that looks like it could be right, but I can't follow one of the steps. Here is what they have written:

F = N - \nablaU
Where N is the normal force, and F is the net force.
The tangental force will be F(tang) = \hat{}v(-\nablaU)

Now consider a small displacement along the wire. Then we should have
ds = ds \hat{}v
***
Then dU = ds\hat{}v\nablaU
***
= -F(tang)ds

Therefore you can write
-dU/ds = F(tang)


The part I don't follow is enclosed with asterisks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't quite follow that proof either, but I offer an alternative one:

Since \vec F_{conservative_{net}}=-\nabla U (Where we've ignored the normal force completely since it is radial to the wire at all times.)
Then it is an immediate consequence that the tangential component of the RHS is the same as the tangential component of the LHS (Since this is a vector equation)

Find a way to express the components of the RHS along the direction of the wire (In the direction of d\vec s using geometry and then use the definition of \nabla U and some algebra to get the desired expression.

Hint on the geometry: d\vec s = d\vec x+d\vec y+d\vec z
Think about right-angled triangles. :) And remember that the magnitudes of these differentials are rarely the same! Do not assume |{d\vec x}|=|{d\vec y}|=|{d\vec z}|
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I'm just not getting it. I'm bad at proofs.

So -{grad}U = F∂x, F∂y, F∂z
and
ds = sqr(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

And doesn't -U = integral(Fdr)?
So...

At any rate, I've slept from sometime after 6:15am to sometime before 7:15am, and that was my full night's sleep. I'm going to put myself down for another hour and a half, and then I'll be back on here to ask more questions in case there's been a response.
 
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top