Charge Seesaw 3

A particle of mass m m and charge + q +q is attached at one end of a massless rigid rod of length R R . The other end of the rod is hinged at the origin of the x y xy plane, such that the rod can rotate freely about the origin. There is another particle of charge + q +q fixed at position ( x , y ) = ( 0 , 1 ) (x,y) = (0, -1) . The Coulomb constant is k e k_e .

At time t = 0 t = 0 , the rod is at rest, and it is parallel to the + x +x axis. Find the time period of the rod's motion.

Details and Assumptions:
1) m = q = R = k e = 1 m = q = R = k_e = 1
2) Neglect all forces except for the standard electric Coulomb force


The answer is 14.307.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

1 solution

Karan Chatrath
Nov 15, 2020

This problem, just like the previous ones can be easily solved using the method of equipotential points. This time, it is apparent that the rod oscillates between θ = 0 \theta=0 and θ = 18 0 \theta = 180^{\circ} . However, I have taken a deliberate numerical approach to demonstrate a partial non explicit computation of Lagrange's equations of motion:

Consider the rod to be at an angle θ \theta at a general time t t . The position vector is:

r = ( cos θ , sin θ ) \vec{r} = (\cos{\theta},\sin{\theta}) v = ( θ ˙ sin θ , θ ˙ cos θ ) \implies \vec{v} = (-\dot{\theta}\sin{\theta},\dot{\theta}\cos{\theta}) r p = ( 0 , 1 ) \vec{r}_p = (0,-1)

Potential energy:

V = k q 2 r r p V = \frac{kq^2}{\lvert \vec{r} - \vec{r}_p \rvert}

Kinetic energy:

T = m 2 v 2 = θ ˙ 2 2 T = \frac{m}{2}\lvert \vec{v} \rvert^2 = \frac{\dot{\theta}^2}{2}

Lagrange's equation is:

d d t ( T θ ˙ ) + V θ = 0 \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial \dot{\theta}}\right) + \frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta}=0 θ ¨ = V θ \implies \ddot{\theta} = -\frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta}

The derivative for potential energy is not computed explicitly, but rather numerically. I tried doing the same for kinetic energy, but I ran into numerical issues. I will attempt to resolve those in due course of time. Code attached below. From a plot of θ \theta vs. Time, one can conclude that the time period of motion is approximately 14.3 s 14.3 \ \mathrm{s} . One can also see that 0 θ π 0 \le \theta \le \pi

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
clear all
clc

% Parameters:
K = 1;
q = 1;
m = 1;

% Initial Conditions:
theta(1)  = 0;
dtheta(1) = 0;

% Time and time step:
dt        = 1e-4;
tf        = 20;
t         = 0:dt:tf;

for k = 1:length(t)-1

    % Potential energy derivative with respect to theta:
    dV          = jacobian(theta(k),@(theta)PE(K,q,theta));

    % Lagrange's equation of motion:
    ddtheta     = -dV;

    % Numerical Integration - Semi implicit Euler:
    dtheta(k+1) = dtheta(k) + ddtheta*dt;
    theta(k+1)  = theta(k) + dtheta(k+1)*dt;
end

plot(t,theta)
grid on

% Function for Potential Energy:
function V = PE(K,q,theta)

rp        = [0;-1;0];
r         = [cos(theta);sin(theta);0];

V         = (K*q^2)/norm(r - rp);

end

% Function for Numerical Jacobian (partial derivative):
function J = jacobian(q,f)

eps = 1e-9;

J   = (f(q + eps) - f(q))/eps;

end

I like the possibility of evaluating complex equations of motion without actually crunching out derivatives. I've tried to explore this idea here, but the code needs refinement and needs to be generalized.

Karan Chatrath - 6 months, 4 weeks ago

Log in to reply

I suppose the potential is a pure function of the angle, so the partial derivative reduces to an ordinary derivative. And then that derivative can be approximated by a difference quotient (using the present and previous values of potential and angle). Is that what you are doing, more or less?

Steven Chase - 6 months, 4 weeks ago

Log in to reply

Yes, the potential is only a function of angle. But to compute the derivative, I am not using the previous value of potential and angle. I am solely relying on the current value of potential and angle. I wrote a user defined function (line 46) to accomplish exactly this. In the function, q q is the independent variable and f f is a function of q q . The function f f in this case is the potential energy which is evaluated within another user defined function.

Karan Chatrath - 6 months, 4 weeks ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...