Timeline for Ambiguity in d'Alembert's principle
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 20:10 | history | edited | pinaki nayak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:45 | comment | added | pinaki nayak | Also if the rod is moving with a constant velocity then p1=p2=const is a solution. Which is what the D'Alembert principle solutions were. | |
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:41 | history | edited | pinaki nayak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body; edited body
|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:36 | comment | added | pinaki nayak | Please look at the edit | |
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:36 | history | edited | pinaki nayak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 282 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:26 | comment | added | pinaki nayak | The lagrange multipliers are introduced to account for the constraint force. | |
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:19 | history | edited | pinaki nayak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 51 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 19:12 | history | edited | pinaki nayak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body; added 26 characters in body
|
| Nov 10, 2018 at 18:47 | comment | added | VanD1206 | It was my impression that the constraints are implicitly incorporated as restrictions to the allowed virtual displacements. I thought that as a consequence of this, the equation as it appears in my question should suffice to determine the equations of motion. Hopefully, the paper that you have kindly pointed me to will help me understand why the constraints will nevertheless need to be introduced using Lagrange multipliers. | |
| Nov 10, 2018 at 17:51 | history | answered | pinaki nayak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |