Spring-Pendulum System Homework: Jackson 2.26

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a homework problem from Jackson 2.26, which involves a mass suspended by a spring in a gravitational field and subjected to an impulsive blow that introduces angular velocity. Participants express confusion regarding the nature of the constraint in the problem, debating whether it pertains to a spring or a string, and how that affects the motion of the mass. Clarification reveals that the term "spring" was a typo, and the correct term is "string," which implies that the radial position of the mass can change due to the impulse. The participants also discuss the implications of the angular velocity on the system's behavior, particularly when determining the conditions under which the string becomes slack. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complexity of applying Lagrangian mechanics to this scenario, especially in understanding constraints and the role of impulse forces.
Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20

Homework Statement



Jackson 2.26. A particle of mass m is suspended by a massless spring of length L. It hangs, without initial motion, in a gravitational field of strength g. It is struck by an impulsive horizontal blow, which introduces an angular velocity w. If \omega is sufficiently small, it is obvious that the mass moves as a simple pendulum. If \omega is sufficiently large, the mass will rotate bout the support. Use a Lagrange multiplier to determine the conditions under which the string becomes slack at some point in the motion.

Homework Equations



In plane polar coordinates, the Lagrangian is

L = \frac{1}{2}m(\dot r^2 + r^2 \dot \theta ^2 ) + mgr\cos (\theta ) - \frac{1}{2}k(r - r_0 )^2

where r_0 is the unstretched length of the system.

There's a few things about this problem that I do not understand. When Jackson says that if \omega is large enough, it will rotate about the support, he doesn't mean that the problem will become 3-D correct? Also, the constraint to this problem is something I can't figure out for the life of me. \theta is not constrained and I can't imagine how r could be constrained so this problem has me stumped. What might the constraint be? I want to say r = r_0 + L (L being the length of the spring) but that doesn't make any sense...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't have a copy of Jackson to check, but first you mention "spring" then in the end you say "string". If it is "spring", then "becomes slack" is meaningless (unless Jackson means "the spring is unstrained"). If it is "string", then "becomes slack" acquires meaning and the constraint should obviously be r = constant assuming that the string is inextensible.
 
Yes it's the string. We've kind of dismissed the idea of r = constant considering since the spring is in the system, r, the position of the mass, can't be constant. Given any angular velocity, the spring will stretch and the radial position of the mass will change. I know the constraint has to due with the radial length, however, considering \lambda \nabla \sigma has to give us back the tension on the string for the external force. Figuring out what it is is stumping me right now. I'm really wondering why they gave us the length of the spring. What good does that do us considering, well, springs stretch.
 
Ok apparently it's a typo in the book and it's suppose to be a string, not a spring. Case closed and done :).
 
  • Like
Likes Long Tran08
so was the constraint that r is constant? How does the impulse force enter the equation?
 
  • Like
Likes Long Tran08
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top