Lagrangian Mechanics: Variable Mass System?

AI Thread Summary
Lagrangian mechanics, defined as L = T - U, describes a dynamic system using the time derivative of positional partial derivatives. The validity of this definition for variable mass systems is questioned, particularly regarding whether partial derivatives with respect to mass are necessary. It is suggested that if mass changes with time, it should be treated in the total time derivative, while position-dependent mass would require differentiation in the partial derivatives. The discussion highlights the complexity of energy conservation when mass is not constant, especially if mass is decreasing or being transferred. The scenario of a mass on a spring with a decreasing mass and an applied force introduces further considerations for the application of Lagrangian mechanics.
Supfresh
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
First, to make sure i have this right, lagrangian mechanics, when describing a dynamic system, is the time derivative of the positional partial derivatives (position and velocity) of the lagrangian of the system, which is the difference between the kinetic and potential energy of the system. (set equal to external forces on the system, Q)

L = T-U

is this right?

So my question is:

is the definition of a lagrangian, T-U, valid only for constant mass systems or can it still be used for variable mass systems? what about the derivatives of the lagrangian, would i need to find the partial derivative of the lagrangian with respect to mass? and finally, I am assuming the answers to these questions are very different if we are talking about a time varying mass vs a mass that varies with postion, yes?

Any help would be much appreciated. As I am sure you can tell, i am very lost at the moment

As background for what I am working on, it's a mass on a spring (assuming attached to a rigid/ non-moving body, so for now 1 degree of freedom) with the mass decresing with respect to time. Finally as the mass decreases there is a perodic downward force applied to the mass decreasing in amplitude proportional to the decrease in mass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hmmm, interesting question. My initial response was that it should still work as long as all the mass is accounted for, but then I saw your specific scenario. If mass was simply moving from body A to body B, both in the problem, I think it would work. If mass was a function of position, it would be differentiated in the partial derivatives. If it was a function of just time, it would be be differentiated in the total time derivative, so I don't see why it wouldn't work.

However, if mass was simply disappearing it seems like you would just have energy disappearing, which strikes me as something that would mess things up (since a big part of the lagrangian is the trade in energy between T and U).

But then your situation is even more interesting, because you actually are putting more T in, in the form of that force. Hmmm, let me think about this.
 
Well i ended up proceeding as i would in a constant mass problem and then just differentiating mass w/respect to time in the total time derivative. Which gave me the following diff equation:

\ddot{m}\ddot{x} + \dot{m}\dot{x} + kx + mg = F(t)

substituting in F(t),

\ddot{m}\ddot{x} + \dot{m}\dot{x} + kx + mg = g(NM-\frac{tω}{2\pi}M)[\frac{1}{2}cos(ωt)+1]

Now to see if i remember how to use maple :eek:
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top