## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Ratings:

Length: 1,307 pages9 hours

Beginning text presents complete theoretical treatment of mechanical model systems and deals with technological applications. Topics include introduction to calculus of vectors, particle motion, dynamics of particle systems and plane rigid bodies, technical applications in plane motions, theory of mechanical vibrations, and more. Exercises and answers appear in each chapter.

Publisher: Inscribe DigitalReleased: Feb 13, 2013ISBN: 9780486151472Format: book

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

**INDEX **

La Dynamique est la science des forces accélératrices ou retardatrices et des mouvements varies qu‘elles doivent produire. Cette science est due entièrement aux modernes, et Galilée est celui qui en a jeté les premiers fondements. . . . Les découvertes des satellites de Jupiter, des phases de Venus, des taches du Soleil, etc., ne demandaient que des telescopes et de l’assiduité; mais il fallait un genie extraordinaire pour démêler les lois de la nature dans des phénomènes que l’on avait toujours eus sous les yeux, mais dont l’explication avait néanmoins toujours échappé aux recherches des philosophes. . . . La Mécanique devint une science nouvelle entre les mains de Newton, et ses *Principes mathématiques, *qui parurent, pour la première fois, en 1687, furent l’époque de cette revolution. *J*. *L. Lagrange *

The aim of theoretical mechanics is to provide quantitative predictions of the motions of material objects. The practical applications of such predictive power are obvious, and a mastery of the subject has been a longstanding objective of men. In succeeding chapters matters are treated from a logical approach which ignores the false starts and obscurities so common in the history of science. The history of mechanics is, however, of considerable cultural and intellectual interest of itself; its influence may be detected even in modern treatments of the subject. For this reason it seems worthwhile to sketch that history briefly.

Although ancient civilizations must have had a grasp of practical mechanics for the erection of their impressive structural monuments, it is to the Greeks that we owe the first recorded systematic efforts to provide a theoretical basis for the subject. Among them, the great name is that of Archimedes (287?–212 B.C.). He appears to have been trained in Alexandria, that center of hellenistic culture where Euclid (c. 330-c. 260 B.C.) had been master. In his works *On the Equilibrium of Planes *and *On Floating Bodies*, Archimedes begins, in the manner of Euclid, by setting out a number of postulates considered as self-evident. With these as foundation he derives a variety of propositions on the equilibrium of levers and on centers of mass, as well as the celebrated theorem in hydrostatics that bears his name. The inspiration for these propositions cannot be known to us with certainty, but, judging from the evidence available, it would seem that the scaffolding for the finished logical structure was provided by experiment. For example, Archimedes is reported to have cut out and weighed a segment of a parabola while investigating the formula for its area. The proofs themselves have been criticized—after two thousand years—on the grounds that they embody rather subtle unstated assumptions. Their cogency, however, is undeniable. Later, the idea of the moment of a force was generalized by Hero of Alexandria (c. 150), and other simple machines were analyzed.

No understanding of dynamics comparable to Archimedes’ grasp of statics was achieved for almost sixteen hundred years. We can only conjecture why this long hiatus should have occurred. It has been attributed to the fact that the Roman economy was a slave economy, which provided little incentive for the development of technology. Many of the Roman wars were simply large-scale slave raids. The feudal economy that followed was based on the labor of the serf, whose condition was scarcely better. Partly, too, progress was retarded by the fact that, among Greek thinkers, it was the great logician Aristotle (384–322 B.C.), rather than Archimedes, whose work was accepted by the schoolmen of the early middle ages. In natural science Aristotle’s primary interest lay in biology; he was led to identify motion with growth and change generally. Every body had a natural

place in the universe. Motion toward this position was natural

and would persist; other motion was unnatural

or violent

and would decay. These ideas did not promote the development of mechanics. Also, the completely geometrical approach of the Greeks was a handicap in the treatment of kinematical questions.

It must not be thought, however, that the period prior to the Renaissance was void of activity in science. Modern historical scholarship has brought to light the names of many who preceded Galileo. Robert Grosseteste, Chancellor of the University of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln in 1235, questioned the mechanics of Aristotle. He inspired John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308), Roger Bacon (1214?–1294), and William of Occam (c. 1270–1349). In the period 1325–1350, a group associated with Merton College, Oxford, led by Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, and John Dumbleton, worked out the kinematics of rectilinear motion. In France, Jean Buridan, who was in 1325 rector of the University of Paris, advanced the idea that a body in motion possessed a certain *impetus*, a quantity very like present-day momentum. His pupil, Nicole Oresme (?–1382), devised a semi-graphical analysis of the kinematics of rectilinear motion in which, essentially, velocity was plotted against time and the area of the diagram used to determine distance traversed. In Spain, Dominic Soto (1494–1560) worked out the laws of freely falling bodies. Finally Simon Stevin (1548–1620), a Netherlands engineer, brilliantly matched the statical achievements of Archimedes. Starting from an analysis of the inclined plane which was based on the impossibility of perpetual motion, he proved the vectorial addition of forces. In hydrostatics he was first to conceive the notion of the principle of solidification, which permitted him to find the pressure exerted by a fluid on its container by considering that any portion of the fluid may be regarded as a frozen solid, without disturbing equilibrium or the pressures in the remainder of the fluid.

At first slowly, and then more rapidly, progress developed. The year 1543 saw the publication of Copernicus’ *On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres *(and also of Vesalius’ book *On the Fabric of the Human Body, *which freed medicine from dependence upon Galen). Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), whose writings and whose discoveries with the telescope did much to secure acceptance for the Copernican theory, may be regarded as the first of the moderns

in mechanics. It was he who introduced that combination of experiment and analysis that is the hallmark of the best scientific work. He established the elementary theory of projectile motion and can be credited with a rudimentary grasp of the idea of inertia. His writings exerted wide influence. They read well, even today, and we may recall the visit that the young Milton paid him in his old age and to which Milton refers in several places in his poetry. After the time of Galileo it was no longer completely respectable to draw conclusions about natural phenomena solely from authority. Huyghens (1629–1695) perfected and completed Galileo’s mechanical discoveries and developed the analysis of the motion of the pendulum.

The year of the death of Galileo saw the birth of Isaac Newton (1642–1727), whose great achievements in mechanics may be judged by the quotation from Lagrange that begins this Introduction: "Mechanics became a new science in the hands of Newton, and his *Principia, *which appeared in 1687, broke the way for this revolution." Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the *Principia *and Locke’s *Essay on the Human Understanding *(1690) marked the opening of that movement which its followers termed the Age of Reason. Newton introduced the concepts of force and mass and stated the laws of motion in the form in which we use them today. Furthermore, he developed the mathematical calculus by means of which the planetary laws so painfully extracted by the dedicated labor of Kepler from the observations of Tycho Brahe could be seen to follow directly from the laws of motion. The principle of universal gravitation is also his, though here credit must be shared with Robert Hooke (1635–1703) and others. The material of the present text is that upon which he set the mark of his genius, and it may properly be denominated *newtonian mechanics. *

The treatment of statical problems by the principle of virtual work was at this time systematized by John Bernoulli (1667–1748). In 1717 he enunciated the first comprehensive statement of this principle (sometimes termed the principle of virtual velocities or virtual displacements). The basic idea can be traced to hellenistic mechanics; it was known to Stevin in a primitive form. Galileo recognized that only the component of the velocity in the direction of the force is effective. Bernoulli also took as basic the product of the force and the virtual velocity component in the direction of the force, but he appreciated that the sum of all such products must vanish for any possible small displacement, if the force system is in statical balance.

The eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries saw the rapid extension of newtonian mechanics. The era was not one of uniform progress, however. There was, for example, an extended controversy between those who felt that the proper measure of a force was the change in kinetic energy produced by it and those who preferred the change in momentum. Leibniz, who had independently developed the calculus, played a role in this dispute, which we now recognize as arising from alternative ways of integrating the second law of motion. The leaders in the main stream of the consolidation of newtonian mechanics during this period were Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) and Jean le Rond d’Alembert (1717?–1783).

Euler’s is certainly one of the greatest names in mathematical physics. A prolific writer, he undertook a series of fundamental texts covering not only the mechanics of particles but hydrodynamics and the mechanics of deformable solids as well. He was one of the first to make full use of calculus in solving Newton’s differential equations of motion—Newton, in the *Principia, *employed geometrical methods, which he felt would be more understandable to his readers. Euler’s treatises served to train most European workers in applied mechanics well into the nineteenth century. In the mechanics of rigid bodies, we owe to Euler, among other things, the angular coordinates used to describe spatial position; the fundamental kinematical theorem, which asserts that any motion of a rigid body can be decomposed into a translation followed by a rotation; the extension of Newton’s equations of motion from the single-particle system to the rigid body (an extension which required an appreciation of the inertia tensor); and the solution of those extended equations to describe free precessional motion. The calculus of variations was in large part created by him as a result of the stimulation presented by the early development of variational principles in mechanics. Many of the fundamental ideas in the development of mechanics that are now associated with other names find their earliest lucid expression and rigorous proof in his work.

D‘Alembert was also the author of a text celebrated in the history of mechanics. His *Treatise on Dynamics, *first published in 1743, amended in 1758, contains many illustrations of the method he devised for analyzing the motion of systems of rigid bodies subject to constraints. He also is to be credited with the first introduction of the idea of a vector *field, *and with showing that conservation of mechanical energy was a consequence of Newton’s laws of motion. Like Newton, d’Alembert took an active part in the political and intellectual life of his day. For a long time he was joint editor of Diderot’s *Encyclopedia, *that remarkable expression of the humanistic philosophy which did so much to discredit well-established institutions such as human slavery, colonialism, religious intolerance, and war, and which emphasized the importance of industry, the value of technical knowledge, and the dignity of labor.

The contribution of d‘Alembert was subsumed into an approach to the equations of motion due to J. L. Lagrange (1736–1813). The *Analytical Mechanics *of Lagrange was published in 1788, one hundred years after Newton’s *Principia. *Lagrange’s inspiration was to use the scalar quantities work and energy rather than the vector quantities force and acceleration to determine the motion of mechanical systems. Combining d’Alembert’s principle with the principle of virtual work, he derived a form of the equations of motion that is today the starting point for most advanced treatments of mechanics. The lagrangian approach does not, indeed, give us the solution of any particular problem that could not equally well be treated by direct reference to Newton’s laws of motion (from which it is derived), but it does make it possible to draw conclusions about the behavior of large classes of systems. An analysis for one system will hold for any other whose energy depends upon the position coordinates in the same way. When the concept of energy was enlarged to include electric and magnetic effects, the motion of electromechanical systems became a natural subject for treatment by Lagrange’s method.

During the nineteenth century, in the hands of Maxwell, Joule, Clausius, Carnot, Gibbs, and W. Thomson, thermodynamics developed along lines suggested by the progress in mechanics. Continuum mechanics—stress analysis, fluid dynamics, and the theory of sound—became well-developed disciplines in their own right, underlying much of today’s engineering. Among the leaders in these fields were Navier, Cauchy, Kirchhoff, and de St. Venant; Helmholtz, Stokes, Joukowsky, and Rayleigh. Meanwhile, two whose names are familiar to students of elementary mechanics were Gaspard Coriolis (1792–1843), who completed the kinematic analysis of particle acceleration referred to moving axes, and J. B. L. Foucault (1819–1868), who devised the gyroscope and pendulum that bear his name. Foucault succeeded, where Galileo had failed, in devising a laboratory demonstration of the rotation of the earth. It should perhaps be noted that Coriolis and Foucault were men of diverse attainments: the former was director of studies at the prestigious École Polytechnique; the latter was a science reporter for the Paris press. The mathematical theory in which the Coriolis component of acceleration explains the behavior of Foucault’s pendulum followed, rather than preceded, the experiments. In 1846 newtonian mechanics achieved what was, in some respects, its crowning success with the discovery of the planet Neptune in precisely the position that U. J. J. LeVerrier and J. C. Adams, after analysis of small anellipticities of the orbit of Uranus, predicted it should occupy.

All of the foregoing work was based upon the three laws of motion due to Newton and upon the principle of virtual work. Is there a single principle from which Newton’s laws, and, consequently, all other mechanical effects, may be derived? As we have seen, Lagrange took a long step toward achieving this goal, which occupies an important place in the history of mechanics. As early as 1740, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698–1759) asserted that the line integral of the quantity *m*v ∙ *d*s, which he termed the *action *of the particle, is always a minimum. In the integrand, *m *denotes the mass of the particle, v its velocity, and *ds *an element of arc-length along the path of the particle. Maupertuis had the misfortune to fall out with Voltaire, then a fellow member of the Prussian Academy of Arts and Science, and to be hilariously caricatured in *The Diatribe of Dr. Akakia. *Euler, who retained a high opinion of his colleague, while remaining in the good graces of Voltaire, showed, in 1744, that the orbit of a particle moving under the influence of a central force would indeed be one in which the action would have a stationary value. Lagrange, in the *Analytical Mechanics, *presented a more general proof, in which he showed that the action would be a minimum for a particle in a conservative force field, subject to time-independent constraints, and would have a stationary value in other cases. The proof of the *principle of least action *used today is due to K. G. J. Jacobi (1804–1851) and was published posthumously in his *Lectures on Dynamics *(1866). Newton’s equations of motion can be derived from the principle of least action; the converse is also true. By starting with an extremal principle of this type, it is possible to dispense with the concept of force as a fundamental one.

The principle of least action differs from the newtonian approach to particle motion by dealing with an integrated effect taken over a length of path rather than with the relation between force and acceleration at any instant. Methods of this sort are known as variational methods. They occupy a distinguished position in mechanical analysis and have an extensive history of their own. The most important such principle is *Hamilton’s Principle, *due to W. R. Hamilton (1805–1865), which asserts that, for a particle moving in a conservative force field, among the various possible neighboring paths the particle may take between any two points the time average of the difference between the kinetic and potential energies has a stationary value over the actual path traversed. (The principle requires modification if the force field is not conservative or if velocity-dependent constraints are present.) Both Newton’s and Lagrange’s forms of the equations of motion may be derived from Hamilton’s principle. It is this formulation of the laws of classical mechanics that has proved most fruitful for the purposes of quantum mechanics.

With technological and scientific progress, increasingly accurate measurements become possible and increasingly broad scientific theories are demanded. In recent decades, minute departures from the predictions of newtonian mechanics have made men realize that, on a macroscopic scale, newtonian mechanics is inappropriate for bodies moving with speeds approaching the speed of light just as, on a microscopic scale, it is inappropriate for describing motions in the nucleus. On the other hand, the variational formulation of the principles of mechanics, being invariant with respect to coordinate transformations, could be modified by Einstein, Poincaré, and Lorentz into modern relativistic mechanics. This development in no way diminishes the lustre of conventional or, as it is called, *classical *mechanics—which, in fact, has played a leading role in the development of the modern einsteinian and quantum mechanics and which forms the basis of present-day technology.

Clagett, M., *Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages *(University of Wisconsin Press, 1959).

Dugas, R., *A History of Mechanics *(New York: Central Book Co., 1955).

McKenzie, A. E. E., *The Major Achievements of Science, *Vol. I (Cambridge University Press, 1960).

*CHAPTER *I

*Introduction to the Calculus of Vectors *

Dynamics is concerned with the prediction of the motions of the widest possible variety of objects and with the computation of the effects that these motions entail. Its basic principles are linked to those of electrodynamics and thermodynamics. Its logical structure has long been a model for other branches of science. In technology, dynamics forms the basis for the design of high-speed vehicles, rotating and reciprocating machinery, structures subject to wind and earthquake effects, fluid flow devices, and electromechanical systems. Engineers, today increasingly confronted with the design of structural elements subject to large accelerations, require a thorough understanding of dynamical principles. Apart from utilitarian considerations, moreover, there has always been an element of delight in the mastery of a tool of the intellect that from a modest number of principles draws explanations of phenomena as diverse as the tipping of a boy’s sled rounding a curve and the way in which a gyrocompass can be made to align itself with the earth’s axis of rotation.

Modern dynamics is based upon Newton’s laws of motion. Before these can be introduced and discussed effectively, it is necessary to describe some of the underlying concepts of mechanics. Words like time interval,

velocity,

and acceleration

are part of everyday speech. Their technical meanings, however, embody subtle ideas. In this chapter we discuss those terms that refer to the mathematical description of motion—reserving others such as force,

mass,

and momentum

for Chapter II.

The description of motion is based upon length measurements—that is, ultimately, upon comparison of distances with marks on a hard, straight rod known as a scale. If the direction of the rod is altered, it is assumed that the distance between two marks on it does not change. We express this by saying that space is *isotropic; *that is, its properties are independent of direction. The distance between marks does not change if the rod is placed in another location; we express this by saying that space is *homogeneous. *Since we do not wish to suppose that length measurements are limited to a surface or to particular locations, we say that space is *three-dimensional *and *continuous. *The attribution of these properties is a convention, but it is one that appears indispensable to any theory that is to be confirmed by experiment.

We also wish to make use of geometry and trigonometry in connection with the description of motion. Mathematics recognizes a variety of geometries and their corresponding spaces,

each kind having its own set of postulates from which its theorems follow. One geometry whose postulates satisfy the requirements of the preceding paragraph is that of Euclid. In classical mechanics the postulates of Euclidean geometry are taken as properties of space. All the wealth of geometric and trigonometric propositions learned in first courses in mathematics thereby become available for use in describing motion. Modern analysis has shown that this is not the sole possible choice. Euclid’s fifth postulate asserts, in effect, that through a point not on a given straight line one and only one straight line parallel to the given line can be drawn. By denying this assertion and substituting others for it, a limited number of geometries can be constructed that still permit objects to be moved about freely without a change of dimensions. The preference for Euclidean geometry—like the statement that space is homogeneous, isotropic, three-dimensional, and continuous—is, therefore, a convention. But these are not arbitrary conventions. They are chosen because they are fruitful and consistent. If they did not lead to the applications of mechanics in technology and science, they would be abandoned; in fact, the Euclidean convention is called into question in connection with the general theory of relativity.

Time is the second fundamental notion in the description of motion. It is commonly said that time flows evenly or uniformly, independent of events. This will hardly serve as a definition of time, however, since terms such as evenly

or uniformly

have no meaning independent of the quantity being described. The present point of view is that the symbol *t*, which appears in equations of motion, is simply a useful independent variable. It takes on all the values of the real number continuum. Every time interval corresponds to the interval between two real numbers. When the equations of motion are solved, and spatial position is known as a function of *t, *we wish to use the results of the analysis to predict the performance of actual mechanical systems. This is accomplished by identifying *t *with time measured on a clock. Essentially, we are here comparing the performances of two mechanical systems—the one we are interested in and a standard one. The standard clock to which other clocks are adjusted is the rotating earth.

It remains to describe the units of time and length. These are the *mean solar second *(sec), which is one part in (60)(60)(24) = 86,400 of the mean solar day, and the meter (m), which is the distance between two marks on a particular piece of metal.**¹ The meter may be subdivided into one hundred parts, each of which is known as a centimeter (cm); or multiples of the meter may be used. The most common of these is the kilometer (km), which is equal to one thousand meters. English-speaking writers, addressing an audience of mixed background, use the inch (in), foot (ft), mile (mi), or yard (yd) as units of length. The British and United States inch are, however, officially defined in terms of the centimeter: one inch is the same as 2.54 cm. This makes one foot the same as 30.48 cm, one yard the same as 91.44 cm, and one mile the same as 1.609344 km. **

It is important to recognize that lengths and time intervals are completely specified on a uniform scale by a single number known as the *measure*. Furthermore, there is a physical meaning to the sum of two lengths. It is a length whose measure is the sum of the measures of the two original lengths. If *A, B, C *are three points in order on a straight line, the length *AC *is the sum of the lengths *AB *and *BC. *Physical addition here corresponds to arithmetic addition. Quantities such as length and time intervals that have the property of adding in this simple way are known as *scalars. *Volume is a scalar quantity. So are mass, work, and energy, which will be encountered later.

The position of a point, *P*, in space may be specified with reference to a set of three perpendicular axes by the coordinates (*xP*, *yP*, *zP*) of the point. These are defined as the orthogonal projections on the axes of the line segment joining the origin to the point in question. This directed line segment is shown as *OP *in **Fig. 1.2-1. Alternatively, the position P may be located by giving rP, the magnitude of the distance from O to P; and the direction cosines of the line OP. These four quantities are not independent. Since **

*1.2-1 *

and since

*1.2-2 *

it follows, by squaring and adding the Eqs. 1.2-1, that

*1.2-3 *

Whatever the preferred method of specification, it will entail giving three numbers. We call the directed line segment *OP*, the *position vector *of the point *P*, and denote it by the symbol r*P***. **This symbol represents a triad of real numbers that collectively describe the magnitude and direction of the directed line segment *OP *in terms of the particular coordinate system used. The vector is independent of the particular coordinate system, but the description of the vector is not. The vector is distinguished from the symbol that represents its magnitude by the use of boldface type for the vector, ordinary type for its magnitude. **² The notation |r P| is also used to designate the magnitude of rP. The numbers (xP, yP, zP) are known as the rectangular components of rP. **

Now suppose that the position of the point under examination changes from *P *to *Q*, as shown in **Fig. 1.2-2. We refer to the directed line segment PQ as the displacement of the moving point and denote it by the vector symbol q. Of course q is only the position vector of Q referred to P as origin, just as rP could be regarded as the displacement vector of a motion from O to P. Now point Q has a position vector rQ. From point O a moving point may reach point Q either by successive displacements rP and q or by a single displacement rQ. Displacements combine according to the so-called triangle law (sometimes termed the parallelogram law because OQ is the diagonal of the parallelogram with sides parallel and equal to OP and PQ). This is what is meant by vectorial addition. Whenever a physical quantity can be represented by a directed line segment (its vector) and the physical sum of two such quantities is formed by vectorial addition, we say that the quantity in question is a vector quantity. We indicate that two vectors are to be added in this way by placing a + sign between the corresponding symbols. Two vectors are said to be equal if they have the same magnitude and direction; we indicate this by means of an = sign. Thus we write **

*1.2-4 *

**Fig. 1.2-1 **

**Fig. 1.2-2 **

The idea of vectorial addition is familiar to students of technology who meet it in their study of statics. In statics, the vectorial balance of forces plays a fundamental role. Among the many vectorial quantities encountered in dynamics are acceleration, angular velocity, momentum, and impulse. Indeed, so pervasive is the vector concept in mechanics that two words of caution are appropriate. First, not all the important properties of a vectorial quantity are necessarily given by its vector. Two forces having the same magnitude and direction will be represented by the same vector, but their effects will depend upon the points at which they are applied. Second, not every quantity that can be represented by a directed line segment is a vector quantity. The best-known exception is afforded by finite rotation of a rigid body. Rotation about an axis through an angle *θ *can be represented by a line segment *AB *having the direction of the axis and a length proportional to *θ*. Successive rotations represented by noncollinear line segments *AB *and *BC *are equivalent to a single rotation (this is proven in Chapter VI). But the equivalent single rotation is not given by the line segment *AC*; in general, its axis is not even in the plane of the segments *AB *and *BC. *

So many of the physical quantities encountered in mechanics are vector quantities that it is highly convenient to extend the definitions of the operations of addition, subtraction, and the formation of products so as to be able to apply them to vectors directly. The definition of vector addition given in connection with Eq. 1.2-4 is the first step in this program.

The next step is to define the negative of a vector; the vector − A has the same magnitude as the vector A but is opposite in direction. For example, the vector −q in **Fig. 1.2-2 would be the directed line segment QP. To subtract one vector, A, from another vector, B, add the negative of A to B. The product of a vector A and a scalar quantity n (i.e., one that has the properties of an ordinary number) is a vector whose magnitude is ∣n∣times the magnitude of A and whose direction is the same as that of A if n is positive, opposite to that of A if n is negative. **

These are definitions. They are useful because they are consistent and because they lead to the same fundamental laws that govern ordinary arithmetic:

*1.3-1a *

*1-3-1b *

*1-3-1c *

*1.3-1d *

*1.3-1e *

The fact that these laws are valid justifies the use of the same + and = symbols in vector equations as in ordinary numerical equations.

Equations 1.3-1 are not definitions or conventions but theorems. The proofs of these theorems are given in Appendix I. Students who have not encountered vector algebra in connection with their study of statics should refer to this appendix for a detailed discussion of vector algebra. For the purposes of the present section we note simply that the laws governing addition and subtraction of vectors and multiplication of vectors by scalars are the same as the laws governing these operations in ordinary algebra and arithmetic. The *zero *or *null vector *is introduced to make these vector operations complete; that is, always possible. The null vector, written either o or o, may be regarded as one whose magnitude is zero; its direction is immaterial. In view of Theorems 1.3-1 and the definition of the null vector we may infer, for example, that, if two vectors X and Y are related to a vector A by the equations

and

*1.3-2 *

it must follow that **X **= 3**A **and **Y **= −2**A**. The vectors **X **and **Y **are parallel to **A **but **Y **is oppositely directed to **A**. The first has a magnitude 3*A*; the second, a magnitude 2*A*.

As a rule, in technological applications, we wish to specify a vector not in terms of some other vector but with reference to a convenient set of axes. This representation is effected by means of unit vectors. A unit vector is simply a vector whose magnitude is 1. The most commonly encountered unit vectors are those in the directions of (*x, y, z*) axes. They are usually denoted by the symbols **i**, **j**, **k **or **i**1, **i**2, **i**3 and are pictured in **Fig. 1.3-1. Referring to Fig. 1.2-1, it may be seen that the directed line segment OA is the vector xPi, the directed line segment OB is the vector yPj, and the directed line segment OC is the vector zPk. These three components, added vectorially, form the directed line segment OP, which was denoted rP. In symbols, **

*1.3-3 *

When a vector has been expressed in this form, its magnitude and direction cosines are easily found by means of the Eqs. 1.2-1, 2.

The basic ideas of vector algebra are completed by the introduction of two further operations, the scalar or dot

product of two vectors, and the vector or cross

product of two vectors. The creation of the first of these operations stems from our desire for a convenient formulation of the projection or *component *of a vector in any direction. The magnitude of this projection is proportional to the cosine of the interior angle between the vectors when their origins coincide. We therefore define an operation on a pair of vectors A, B by the formula

*1.3-4 *

The notation is straightforward; *A *and *B *are the magnitudes of the corresponding vectors; *θ *is the angle mentioned. To find the component of A in the direction of **B**, it is only necessary to replace **B **in Eq. 1.3-4 by a unit vector in the same direction. This unit vector is the vector **B **multiplied by the scalar 1/*B*. It is easy to show (see Appendix I) that if

A = *Ax*i+*Ay*j+*Az*k and B = *Bx*i+*By*j+*Bz*k,

then

**Fig. 1.3-1 **

*Fig. 1-3-2 *

*1.3-5 *

The scalar product, as its name implies, is itself a scalar quantity having the properties of a single ordinary number. It may be positive or negative.

The second product form, the so-called vector or cross

product of two vectors, arises from the need for a convenient representation of the moment of a vector about a point. We define A x B as a vector whose magnitude is given by the expression

*1.3-6 *

whose direction is at right angles to the plane passing through A and B, and whose sense is determined by the right-hand rule (i.e., when the tips of the fingers of the right hand pass from the terminus of the first-named vector, A, to the terminus of the second-named vector, B, the thumb of the right hand is directed along vector A × B).

The relation of the vector **A **× **B **to the vectors A and B is illustrated in **Fig. 1.3-3. The use of the right-hand rule to determine the sense of A × B implies that **

*1.3-7 *

**Fig. 1.3-3 **

This is the only exception to the operations of ordinary algebra that arises in connection with the use of the vector symbolism. The representation of the vector product in cartesian form is shown in Appendix I to take the form

*1.3-8 *

In view of the use of the right-hand rule in defining the sense of A × B, it is essential that the orthogonal triad of axes (*x, y, z*) also be right-handed. It is also shown in Appendix I that the scalar product satisfies the commutative and distributive laws

*1.3-9 *

The proofs of Eqs. 1.3-9, like those of Eqs. 1.3-1, follow directly from the definitions of the operations together with simple geometrical considerations. The proof of the distributive law for vector products is less obvious. It is shown in Appendix I that

*1.3-10 *

Of course the order of the terms must not be altered since, in view of Eq. 1.3-7, the commutative law is not satisfied.

Since the vector product is itself a vector, it may be combined with a third vector to form a so-called triple product. The scalar triple product, which is a number, is a convenient and compact way of expressing the moment of a vector about a line. In view of Eqs. 1.3-5, 8,

*1.3-11 *

*1.3-12 *

so that if the rectangular components of the vectors are known, the numerical evaluation of the scalar triple product is elementary. The parentheses in the expression (A × B) ∙ C are unnecessary; no other placement of the parentheses will yield a meaningful expression. Since the numerical value of a determinant is not affected by interchanging adjacent rows an even number of times but is reversed in sign by an odd number of interchanges, it follows that the scalar triple product depends only on the cyclic order of the vectors A, B, C and not on the symbols. ∙ and × ;

**(A **× **B**) ∙ **C **= **A **∙ (**B **× **C**)

and

*1.3-13 *

but

*1.3-14 *

It also follows that if any two of the vectors A, B, **C **are identical (A × B) ∙ C = o.

The repeated vector product is itself a vector and is known as the *vector triple product, *(**A **× **B**) × C. Here the parentheses are indispensable. The vector **A **× **B **is perpendicular to the plane of A and B. The second cross product provides a second ninety-degree rotation so that the vector (**A **× **B**) × **C **lies in the plane of **A **and **B**. This suggests that (**A **× **B**) × **C **ought to be expressible as the sum of components proportional to **A **and to **B**. The essence of the method by which this important resolution is effected lies in resolving **C **into the sum of components in directions perpendicular to A, to B and to the plane of **A **and **B**. Let **e **denote a unit vector normal to the plane of A and B. Then e is parallel to **A **× **B**. We express this fact by writing

*1-3-15 *

where *a *denotes some number. Now the vectors e, e × A, and **e **× **B **are a set that do not all lie in the same plane, and no two of which are parallel (unless **A **and **B **are parallel). They form an oblique set of three-dimensional axes. Any vector, in particular the vector **C**, can be expressed in the form

*1.3-16 *

where *b, c*, *d*, like *a, *are three as yet undetermined numbers. Now, in view of Eq. 1.3-15,

*1.3-17 *

But e × e = o and, as may be seen by inspection of **Fig. 1.3-4, **

*1.3-18 *

**Fig. 1.3-4 **

**Fig. 1.4-1 **

It follows that

*1.3-19 *

The vector triple product has been expressed in the wanted form. It remains to determine the numbers *ac *and *ad. *From Eq. 1.3-16, we see that

*1.3-20 *

and

*1.3-21 *

On substituting these expressions into Eq. 1.3-19, we have

*1.3-22 *

This result finds application in later development of the theory of our subject. An alternative proof is given in Appendix I. Verification of the result in the special case in which A and B are parallel may serve as an exercise to check the student’s understanding of the operations of vector algebra.

In dynamics, the position vector of a moving point is a function of time. We indicate this by writing r(*t*). The functional relationship is *continuous. *By this we mean that if *t*0 is any particular instant of time, the magnitude of the vector difference ∣r(*t*)–r(*t*0)∣ can be made as small as desired by taking *t *sufficiently close to *t*0. In symbols, if

*1.4-1 *

Now consider a moving point that at time *t*0 has a position vector r(*t*0), as shown in **Fig. 1.4-1. At a later time, t0 + Δt, its position vector is r(t0, + Δt). The change in r is the vector Δr, which is the difference between these two values of r. **

*1.4-2 *

We wish to make precise our intuitive notion that the velocity of the moving point is the rate at which its position vector is changing. To do this we define the time-average velocity of the moving point during the time interval Δ*t *to be the product of the vector Δr and the scalar 1/Δ*t*. The *instantaneous velocity *of the moving point at time *t*0 is defined as the limit that this average velocity approaches as the time interval, Δ*t*, is taken shorter and shorter. By analogy with the ordinary differential calculus, this limit is called the derivative of the vector r with respect to the scalar variable *t. *In symbols,

*1.4-3 *

It has been assumed that this limit exists. If it does not, the function r has no derivative with respect to *t *at *t*0. Instantaneous velocity finds such wide application in mechanics that the term is generally used without the qualifying adjective instantaneous,

and we speak simply of the *velocity*. The units of velocity are determined by the units chosen for distance and time. For this reason they are known as *derived *or *secondary *units. If distances are measured in meters and time intervals in seconds, the unit of velocity, to be consistent, should be the meter-per-second (m/sec). Similarly, the foot-per-second corresponds to measurement of distances in feet and time in seconds.

It should be noted that whereas the position vector, r, depends upon the choice of a reference point, *O*, the displacement vector does not. Velocity is a path-dependent quantity. That velocity is indeed a vector quantity follows from the fact that if we think of r as experiencing two independent component increments Δr1 and Δr2 in the time interval Δ*t*, we shall have (Δr/Δ*t*) = (Δr1/Δ*t*) + (Δr2/Δ*t*). In the limit as Δ*t *→o, these terms become derivatives. Since the limit of a sum of two vector functions is the sum of their separate limits, it follows that the velocity is the vector sum of its components. That the direction of this velocity vector is actually tangent to the path is shown in Section 1.9. The magnitude of the velocity is called the *speed. *

The foregoing discussion, although it has been keyed to the position vector, may serve to define the derivative of any vector quantity that is a function of a scalar variable. Time, however, is so commonly the scalar variable of interest in dynamics that derivatives with respect to time have come to be denoted simply by superscript dots. For *d*r/*dt *is the *acceleration *of the moving point.

The analogy between the differentiation of a vector with respect to a scalar variable and the ideas of the ordinary differential calculus is a close one. The rules for the differentiation of sums and products of two vectors are the same as those of elementary calculus:

*1.4-4a *

*1.4-4b *

*1.4-4c *

*1.4-4d *

The proofs of these statements are all quite similar and may be exemplified by that for Eq. 1.4-4b. If *n *and A take on increments in time Δ*t*,

and

As Δt → o, the last term vanishes and the other terms approach the corresponding members of Eq. 1.4-4b. Equation 1.4-4b provides the basis of a practical way of computing the magnitude and direction of the derivative. If (i, j, k) are vectors of unit magnitude directed along rectangular axes (*x*, *y*, *z*) and r is expressed as the sum of components

r = *f*(*t*)i + *g*(*t*)j + *h*(*t*)k,

then it follows from Eq. 1.4-3 and 1.4-4b that

Since the (*x, y, z*) axes are fixed in direction, i, j, k must be constant both in magnitude and direction. The derivative of a constant vector is zero so that

*1.4-5 *

Higher derivatives may be calculated in the same way.

*Example *1.4-1

*A vector has constant magnitude but varies in direction. Show that its time derivative at any instant is perpendicular to the vector itself at that instant. *

*Solution: *Denote the vector by the symbol A. We express the fact that the magnitude of A is constant by saying that the right-hand side of the equation

A ∙ A = *A*²

is a constant. Differentiating both sides and using Eq. 1.4-4c, we have

But the order of terms in the scalar product is immaterial so that

It follows from the definition of the scalar product (Eq. 1.3-4) that **A **and *d***A***/dt *must be at right angles to one another (unless one of them is zero). This result implies that the rate of change of a constant-magnitude vector must be perpendicular to the vector itself. In application, **A **might be the velocity of a point moving with constant speed; the acceleration would be at right angles to the velocity. Alternatively, **A **might be the position vector of a point on a rod, the end of which is held in a universal joint. In this case, the origin of the position vector would be at the joint, and we should conclude that the velocity vector of the point is at right angles to the rod.

*Example *1.4-2

*Investigate the time derivative of *(1/2)v∙v.

*Solution: *We may treat this question in two ways. Starting from Eq. 1.4-4c, we see that

or

*1.4-6 *

A second approach starts from the relation

The right-hand side of this expression is an ordinary scalar quantity, the square of the magnitude of v. Differentiating,

*1.4-7 *

Both forms are interesting. If Eq. 1.4-6, 7 are combined, we have

*1.4-8 *

Up to this point in the discussion, v has represented any vector; a, its time derivative. If we interpret v as the velocity and a as the acceleration of a moving point, *dv/dt *is the rate at which the speed is changing. In view of the definition of the scalar product (Eq. 1.3-4), we have

*1.4-9 *

where *θ *denotes the angle between the velocity and acceleration vectors. The magnitude of the acceleration vector, *a*, is always greater than or equal to the rate at which speed is changing. As we shall see in Section 1.9, the reason for this is that part of the acceleration arises from a change in the direction of the velocity vector.

*Example *1.4-3

*The position vector of a moving point is given by the expression *

r = (*R *cos *ωt*)**i**+(*R *sin *ωt*)**ϳ**.

*Describe the motion. *

*Solution: *The coordinates of this moving point at any time are *x = R cos ωt, y = R sin ωt, z = o. *The point is moving in the *xy*-plane.

To find the equation of the path, eliminate t from the first two equations. In the present case, this is most easily done by squaring each and adding. Then

*x² + y² = R² cos² ωt + R² sin2 ωt, *

*x² + y² = R²*.

The point moves in a circle of radius R. Initially *(t = o), *the point is located at *x = R, y = z = o. *It returns to this place at *t=2π/ω, t=4π/ω, t=6π/ω, *etc. The motion is said to be *periodic *because it repeats itself. Since the moving point goes through a complete cycle of motion, returning to its original position every *2π/ω *sec, it is said to have a period of *2π/ω *seconds per cycle. The velocity and acceleration of the moving point are

v = ṙ= (*−Rω sin ωt*)i+(*Rω cos ωt*)ϳ

and

The speed of the moving point is

*ν*= [(−*Rω*sin *ωt*)*² *+ (*Rω cos ωt*)*²*]*½ = Rω. *

In this example the speed is constant. The acceleration vector, however, is not zero. It is equal to the negative of the radius vector multiplied by *ω²; *that is,

We infer that in this example, where the speed is constant, the acceleration vector is always directed from the moving point toward the center of the circular path. The student should verify that this special case agrees with the general results reached in Examples 1.4-1, 2.

*Example *1.4-4

*An insect moves along a diameter of a turntable that is rotating at a uniform rate of p radians per second. The insect has a constant speed, s, relative to the turntable. What is its acceleration as it passes through the center ? *

**Fig. 1.4-2 **

*Solution: *This question is one of a type that ‘can best be handled by a method to be developed in a later chapter. It is worth studying now because the result is not intuitively obvious, and because it provides a link between the ideas of this section and the ones developed later in connection with kinematics. In **Fig. 1.4-2 the insect is shown in a typical position, at time t. If at time zero the insect started at a distance R from the center, it will have moved through a distance st measured on the turntable. The radius along which it is moving will have turned through an angle pt relative to the fixed x, y axes. The position vector is **

r = [(*R−st*) cos *pt*]**i**+[(R−st) sin *pt*]**ϳ**.

If this is differentiated twice with respect to time,

v = [−s cos *pt*−(*R−st*)*p *sin *pt*]**i**+[−*s *sin *pt*+(*R−st*)*p *cos *pt*]ϳ,

a = [2*sp *sin *pt*−(*R−st*)*p² *cos *pt*]*i*+[−2*sp *cos *pt*−(*R−st*)*p² *sin *pt*]**ϳ**,

and

a = *2sp*[(sin *pt*)i−(cos *pt)*ϳ]−*p²*r.

As the particle passes through the center of the turntable, r = 0 and the acceleration has a magnitude *2sp. *It is interesting that even though the insect is traveling with constant speed relative to the turntable and has reached a point on the turntable which is at rest, its acceleration does not vanish. We shall later see that this acceleration term is what is known as the Coriolis component of acceleration. In the present example the direction of the acceleration vector when r=0 is at right angles to the radius along which the insect is crawling, pointed to the insect’s left. The insect moving along the diameter of a rotating turntable is analogous to a fluid element moving along the vanes of a turbine or impeller (except that these vanes may be curved). Its acceleration is a measure of the force exerted on it by the vane.

In vector calculus, just as in the ordinary calculus, the concept of the integral of a function presents two aspects. The integral may be introduced first as the antiderivative; that is, we call F(*t*) an integral of f(*t*) if (*d F/dt*) =

F(*t*) = ∫**f**(*t*)*dt*.

This is the indefinite integral, so termed because an arbitrary constant vector may be added to F. For example,**³ **

∫(6t²i−*at*-1ϳ) *dt *= *2t*³**i**−*a*(log *t*)**ϳ**+C

and

∫(sin *ωt*i+2*t*k) *dt *= (−*ω*-1 cos *ωt*)**i**+*t*²**k **+ **C**.

Integrations of this type reduce at once to ordinary integrations because the vectors (**i**, **ϳ**, **k**), being constant in magnitude and direction, can be taken outside the integral sign. Similarly, if A is a constant and F a variable vector,

A more sophisticated example is provided by

. Now

*1.5-1 *

The cross product of parallel vectors is zero so that the first term on the right-hand side of Eq. 1.5-1 vanishes. We have, therefore,

*1.5-2 *

It is worthwhile to form the habit of checking integrations by a differentiation of the final result.

Linear differential equations in which the independent variable is a scalar and the wanted quantity is a vector may be treated in much the same way as differential equations in which the variables are ordinary numbers. It is important to remember, however, that the so-called constants of integration will be vectors. If, for example, acceleration is given by the expression

where **A **and **B **are constant vectors, it follows that

and

r = **A***t*³+**B***t*²+C1*t*+**C**2.

The constant vectors **C**1 and **C**2 require additional information for their determination. This information usually takes the form of *initial conditions *that specify the position vector, r0, and the velocity vector, v0, at the initial instant, t = 0. Then C1 = v0 and C2 = r0.

In contrast to the antiderivative, the definite integral is defined as the limit of a sum. It is related to the indefinite integral by the fundamental theorem of integral calculus. This theorem,**⁴ in vector form, asserts that if ( dF/dt) = f for all values of t in the interval t1, t2, then **

*Example *1.5-1

*A point moves with a constant acceleration. When observed, its velocity has components ν*1 *in the direction of the acceleration and ν*2 *at right angles to it. Find the position at any time after the observation. *

*Solution: *Take an x-axis in the direction of the acceleration and a y-axis in the direction of ν2. The origin is at the position of the point when its velocity is observed, and we measure time from that instant.

*1.5-3 *

and

*1.5-4 *

At *t *= 0, r = 0 so that C2 = o.

At *t *= 0, ṙ = ν1**i**+ν2ϳ so that C1 = ν1i+ν2j.

The position at any time is therefore given by the expression

The x- and *y*-coordinates of the moving point are

On eliminating *t*, we find the path equation:

This is a parabola. Note that the analysis is greatly facilitated by the choice of axes.

The vectors that we have considered thus far have all been constants or functions of a scalar variable. In mechanics, this scalar variable is usually time or distance along a path. There is no difficulty, however, in imagining a vector that is a function of another vector. The gravitational force exerted on an object depends both in magnitude and in direction upon the position of the object in space; so does the velocity of a fluid element in a moving body of liquid and so also does the force exerted on a charged particle near a current-carrying coil. When the vector in which we are interested is a function of position as well as time, we speak of a *vector field. *This may be, for example, a gravitational field or a velocity field or an electromagnetic field. Clearly the calculus of vector functions of several variables is more complex than is that of a vector function of a single scalar variable. We defer until later the discussion of vector fields.

Emphasis so far in this chapter has been placed on the calculus of vectors, with the concepts of position, velocity, and acceleration of a moving point used as examples of vector procedures. We now wish to examine these concepts more closely. We shall be concerned with the motion of a point through space and want to describe its position, velocity, and acceleration as functions of time. The study of the geometry of motion without regard for the causes of the motion is called *kinematics; *here we are concerned with particle kinematics; i.e., with the study of the motion of objects that, insofar as their motion is concerned, can be represented by a moving point.

The precise description of motion is a necessary preliminary to the study of dynamics. Indeed, the purely kinematical relations strongly suggest the forms of the principles of dynamics. Teaching experience shows that inadequate understanding of kinematics is the most common single source of students’ errors.

Let us first summarize what has been done so far. The position of a moving point is prescribed by a vector r from a point 0 in space to the moving point, and thus depends on the choice of 0. Displacement, which we shall now denote by Δr, is any change in position. If the position vector **r **is a twice differentiable function of the scalar time variable *t*, the velocity and acceleration of the particle are

*1.7-1 *

The companion integral relations are

*1.7-2 *

Here v(*t*0) and r(*t*0) are vector constants of integration; and τ

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading