0
$\begingroup$

Consider a system of two particles of masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ moving in a plane. Let the respective position vectors be $\mathbf{r_1}$ and $\mathbf{r_2}$. The particles are attached at the end of a massless rigid rod of some length $l$. Since this is a holonomic constraint, $$(\mathbf{r_1-r_2})^2-l^2=0$$ The system should have $4-1=3$ generalized independent coordinates. I am apparently unable to figure out those.

Since there is only one constraint, fixing any three of the four cartesian coordinates (coordinates of both the particles) should automatically, I think, fix the remaining one. But given $(x_1,y_1)$ and $x_2$, $y_2$ can have two values that satisfy the constraint. So is $y_2$ independent in some way?

About the generalized coordinates, let $\mathbf{R}$ (2 d.o.f) be the C.O.M. of the system. For third d.o.f, take the angle $\mathbf{r_1-r_2}$ makes with the positive x-axis. But if only the magnitude of that angle is considered, there will be two possible configurations of the rod for every possible value of that angle (above the axis and below the axis). To tackle this, one way is to assign a sign to the angle, + above the axis from $0$ to $\pi/2$ (counter-clockwise) and (-) below the axis from $0$ to $-\pi/2$ (clockwise). Would this be a legit way?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your choice of generalized coordinates in the last paragraph seems like a legitimate choice. $\endgroup$
    – Alice
    Commented May 25, 2020 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ I haven't worked it out but still I doubt if there would be an issue when writing down equation of motion due to the discontinuity in the angle $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2020 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ You probably may think of the angle not as "discontinuous" but as "wrapping around". $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2020 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RolazaroAzeveires could you please explain 'wrapping around'? $\endgroup$ Commented May 28, 2020 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ Angles (may) wrap around in the sense that the related functions are periodic. In your case (I think) you are using an angle that goes from $-\frac\pi2$ to $\frac\pi2$, so it has period of $\pi$. That is any angle $\alpha+n\pi$ (with $n$ integer) should yield the same results as $\alpha$ in your equations. So when your angle increases some (small) $\delta$ from $\frac\pi2$ you do not need to have a discontinous jump back to $-\frac\pi2+\delta$. You may as well use $+\frac\pi2+\delta$ because it "is the same" as $-\frac\pi2+\delta + \pi$ $\endgroup$ Commented May 31, 2020 at 22:26

0