Stuck on Polar Coordinate Components?

In summary, the conversation discusses a question involving a particle's trajectory given by a polar equation and its conversion to Cartesian coordinates. It also explores the transverse component of acceleration and its relationship to the particle's position and velocity. The conversation ends with the participants trying to solve for the radial component of acceleration using the previously discussed equations.
  • #1
Carla1985
94
0
I'm stuck on the second part of this question.

Suppose a particle moves in a plane with its trajectory given by the polar equation $r=2b\sin(\theta)$ for some constant $b>0$.

(i) Show that this can be written in Cartesian coordinates as $x^2+(y-b)^2=b^2$.

This is the equation for a circle of centre $(0,b)$ and radius $b$.

[Hint: recall that $r^2=x^2+y^2$ and $y=r\sin(\theta)$]

(ii) Suppose that the transverse component of the acceleration is zero.

(a) Prove that $r^2\dot{\theta}=h$ is constant.

(b) Assuming that $r\ne0$, show that $\dot{r}=2bhr^{-2}\cos(\theta)$ and hence find $\ddot{r}$.

(c) Use your answers to (b) to show that the radial component of the acceleration is $-8b^2h^2r^{-5}$.

So far, I've got:

$r=2b\sin(\theta)$

$\dot{r}=2b\cos(\theta)\dot{\theta}$

So, the transverse coordinate is $4b\cos(\theta)\dot{\theta}^2+2b\sin(\theta)\dot{ \theta}$.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Carla1985 said:
I'm stuck on the second part of this question.

Suppose a particle moves in a plane with its trajectory given by the polar equation $r=2b\sin(\theta)$ for some constant $b>0$...

Of course it must be r>0 so that i wonder if the equation of the trajectory is, may be, $ r= 2\ b\ |\sin \theta|$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
  • #3
I don't understand, sorry. I'm on part ii) a. I've found a hint in some of our notes to differentiate
r2θ˙

but that just gets really messy and I don't see how it helped :/
 
  • #4
Welcome to MHB, Carla1985! :)

As you can see here or here, the angular acceleration is $a_\theta = r\ddot\theta + 2 \dot r \dot\theta$.
Is that perchance in your notes?

Since $a_\theta = 0$, it follows that:

$r\ddot\theta + 2 \dot r \dot\theta = 0$​

You already saw in (i) that it is useful to multiply by r:

$r^2\ddot\theta + 2r \dot r \dot\theta = 0$

$\frac{d}{dt}(r^2\dot\theta) = 0$

$r^2\dot\theta = constant$ $\qquad \blacksquare$​
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Ah that makes sense. Thank you :)
 
  • #6
chisigma said:
Of course it must be r>0 so that i wonder if the equation of the trajectory is, may be, $ r= 2\ b\ |\sin \theta|$...

When $\pi < \theta < 2\pi$ there is no positive value for r... but with a negative value it still fits the orbit, which is a circle around (0,b) with radius b.
 
  • #7
Ah yes, I think that's what we proved in part 1, that its trajectory is a circle :)
 
  • #8
I've made a mistake somewhere in the last 2 parts but can't find where.
r.=2bhr-2cos
r..=-2bhr-2sinθ-8b2h2r-5cos2θ

then for the radial component
(-2bhr-2sin
θ-8b2h2r-5cos2θ-2bh2r-4sinθ)

which isn't what I want lol
 
  • #9
Carla1985 said:
I've made a mistake somewhere in the last 2 parts but can't find where.
r.=2bhr-2cos
r..=-2bhr-2sinθ-8b2h2r-5cos2θ

then for the radial component
(-2bhr-2sin
θ-8b2h2r-5cos2θ-2bh2r-4sinθ)

which isn't what I want lol

Your $\dot r$ looks good! (Except for the θ that didn't make it.)

And in your $\ddot r$, it seems that you forgot the $\dot \theta$.
Makes sense because you lost a $\theta$ before that. ;)

I'm assuming you continued with:

$a_r = \ddot r - r \dot \theta^2$​

Did you consider that you can eliminate $\sin \theta$ by using $r = 2b\sin\theta$?
 
  • #10
ILikeSerena said:
Your $\dot r$ looks good! (Except for the θ that didn't make it.)

And in your $\ddot r$, it seems that you forgot the $\dot \theta$.
Makes sense because you lost a $\theta$ before that. ;)

I'm assuming you continued with:
$a_r = \ddot r - r \dot \theta^2$​

Did you consider that you can eliminate $\sin \theta$ by using $r = 2b\sin\theta$?

I substituted $\dot \theta$ with hr-2 from in the last step? And no I didnt think of that but I'l give it a try
 
  • #11
Tried eliminating sinθ and its close but not quite

Im left with -h2r-3 and -h2r-1 so still don't cancel out and I still have a cos2θ in the middle term that shouldn't be there
 
  • #12
Did you know that $\sin^2\theta + \cos^2\theta = 1$?
 
  • #13
ILikeSerena said:
Did you know that $\sin^2\theta + \cos^2\theta = 1$?

Yes, that's what I thought I was working towards but I have a - between them not a x
 
  • #14
Carla1985 said:
Yes, that's what I thought I was working towards but I have a - between them not a x

You can still replace $\cos^2\theta$ by $1 - \sin^2 \theta$.
 
  • #15
Still doesn't work. I get:

sin - (the term i want to be left with) + sin2 -sin
The 3 terms with sin have different coefficients so still don't cancel out
 
  • #16
Sorry, but I'm way overdue to sleep.
See you tomorrow! (Sleepy)
 
  • #17
nps, me too. thanks for all the help, I am sure il get it in the morning after some sleep :)
 
  • #18
Carla1985 said:
nps, me too. thanks for all the help, I am sure il get it in the morning after some sleep :)

Hey Carla1985! ;)

Did you get it by now?
To be honest, I did not.
I haven't properly checked my calculations yet, but I'm not getting the result stated in your problem, just like you.
I can get an expression in just $r$ and $\theta$ which seems to be the purpose of the exercise.
but it's just not what is suggested.
Perhaps they were wrong? Or perhaps I made a mistake. :(
 
  • #19
I made progress. I had the differentiation slightly wrong to start with. So I have:

\[

r=2bsin\theta \\
\dot{r}=2bhr^{-2}cos\theta \\
\ddot{r}=-8b^2h^2r^{-5}cos^2\theta-2bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta \\
\\
which\ gives: \\
\ddot{r}-r\dot{\theta}^2=-8b^2h^2r^{-5}cos^2\theta-2bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta-2bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta \\
so\ =-8b^2h^2r^{-5}cos^2\theta-4bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta \\

\]

Im not sure how to get rid of the cos onwards, apparently we divide through by something :/
 
  • #20
Carla1985 said:
I made progress. I had the differentiation slightly wrong to start with. So I have:

\[

r=2bsin\theta \\
\dot{r}=2bhr^{-2}cos\theta \\
\ddot{r}=-8b^2h^2r^{-5}cos^2\theta-2bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta \\
\\
which\ gives: \\
\ddot{r}-r\dot{\theta}^2=-8b^2h^2r^{-5}cos^2\theta-2bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta-2bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta \\
so\ =-8b^2h^2r^{-5}cos^2\theta-4bh^2r^{-4}sin\theta \\

\]

Im not sure how to get rid of the cos onwards, apparently we divide through by something :/

Looks good! :)

So let's continue:

$a_r = -8b^2h^2r^{-5}\cos^2\theta-4bh^2r^{-4}\sin\theta$

$a_r = -8b^2h^2r^{-5}(1 - \sin^2\theta)-4bh^2r^{-4}\sin\theta$

$a_r = -8b^2h^2r^{-5} + 8b^2h^2r^{-5}\sin^2\theta-4bh^2r^{-4}\sin\theta$​

We can substitute $r = 2b \sin \theta$ (in reverse), getting:

$a_r = -8b^2h^2r^{-5} + 2h^2r^{-5}\cdot r^2-2h^2r^{-4} \cdot r$

$a_r = -8b^2h^2r^{-5}$ $\qquad \blacksquare$​

There you go! ;)
 

FAQ: Stuck on Polar Coordinate Components?

What are polar coordinate components?

Polar coordinate components are a way of representing a point in a two-dimensional space using two values: the distance from the origin (known as the radius) and the angle between the point and the positive x-axis (known as the polar angle).

How do you convert from polar coordinates to Cartesian coordinates?

To convert from polar coordinates to Cartesian coordinates, you can use the following formulas:
x = r * cos(theta)
y = r * sin(theta)
where r is the radius and theta is the polar angle.

What is the difference between polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates?

The main difference between polar coordinates and Cartesian coordinates is the way they represent points in a two-dimensional space. Polar coordinates use a distance and angle from the origin, while Cartesian coordinates use horizontal and vertical distances from the origin.

What is the range of values for polar coordinates?

The range of values for polar coordinates depends on the context in which they are being used. In most cases, the radius is a positive value and the polar angle is between 0 and 2*pi radians (or 0 and 360 degrees).

How are polar coordinates used in science?

Polar coordinates are commonly used in science, particularly in fields such as physics, engineering, and mathematics. They are useful for representing circular or rotational motion, as well as in solving problems involving symmetry and periodicity.

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
3K
Back
Top