M$ will generally have different kinematic properties to the structure involving $T^{(2)}M$.

This difference is difficult to see if we only consider the configuration space itself but not how it is constructed. For example, when $M=\mathbb{R}^n$, both $(T\oplus T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ can be considered as (or more properly, are diffeomorphic to) $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, but there are nontheless significant differences, namely that for quadratic energy, one model supports torque while the other does not! (In fact, we can construct an isomorphism of $(T\oplus T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ as fibre bundles using a metric – see appendix **\[subapp:vectTNM\]** for more details. However, the isomorphism depends on the metric, and the complete lifts of vector fields to $(T\oplus T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ respectively do not coincide under the isomorphism.)

Dissipation bracket for $3$-bead chains {#subsec:diss3bead}
---------------------------------------

We continue to follow the same strategy as the bead-spring pairs to construct the dissipation bracket for the $3$-bead chain suspension.

Let $M = \mathbb{R}^n$, so we can identify $T^{(2)}M$ with $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$ with coordinates $(x^i,y^i,z^i)$. Consider the usual Riemannian metric $g$ on $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, which can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\mathrm{d}y^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}z^i\mathrm{d}z^j.\end{aligned}$$ The construction of Riemannian metrics on higher order tangent bundles of general Riemannian manifolds is considered in appendix **\[app:vect\]**.

We can define the dissipation bracket $$\begin{aligned}
(F,G) = \int \mathrm{d}^nx\mathrm{d}^ny\mathrm{d}^nz \ \psi \ \widetilde{g}\left(  \mathrm{d}\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta \psi}\right), \mathrm
M$ will generally have different kinematic properties to the social organization imply $ T^{(2)}M$. 

 This difference is difficult to visualize if we entirely consider the configuration outer space itself but not how it is constructed. For example, when $ M=\mathbb{R}^n$, both $ (T\oplus T)M$ and $ T^{(2)}M$ can be consider as (or more properly, are diffeomorphic to) $ \mathbb{R}^{3n}$, but there are nontheless meaning differences, namely that for quadratic energy, one model supports torsion while the other does not! (In fact, we can manufacture an isomorphism of $ (T\oplus T)M$ and $ T^{(2)}M$ as fibre bundles use a metric – see appendix * * \[subapp: vectTNM\ ] * * for more details. However, the isomorphism count on the metric, and the complete lifts of vector fields to $ (T\oplus T)M$ and $ T^{(2)}M$ respectively do not concur under the isomorphism .) 

 Dissipation bracket for $ 3$-bead chains { # subsec: diss3bead } 
 --------------------------------------- 

 We cover to follow the same strategy as the bead - give pairs to construct the dissipation bracket for the $ 3$-bead chain suspension. 

 Let $ M = \mathbb{R}^n$, so we can identify $ T^{(2)}M$ with $ \mathbb{R}^{3n}$ with coordinates $ (x^i, y^i, z^i)$. Consider the usual Riemannian metric $ g$ on $ \mathbb{R}^{3n}$, which can be written as $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \mathrm{d}s^2 = \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\mathrm{d}y^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}z^i\mathrm{d}z^j.\end{aligned}$$ The construction of Riemannian metrics on higher order tangent package of general Riemannian manifolds is view in appendix * * \[app: vect\ ] * *. 

 We can specify the dissipation bracket $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 (F, G) = \int \mathrm{d}^nx\mathrm{d}^ny\mathrm{d}^nz \ \psi \ \widetilde{g}\left (  \mathrm{d}\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta \psi}\right), \mathrm
M$ wlll generally have diffevent kinematic ptopertiev to tge strucgure involving $T^{(2)}M$.

This differxnce is dufficult to see if we unly conspder the xonfmguration space mfself bmc not mow ic ms constructed. Nor example, when $M=\mathbb{R}^t$, coch $(T\oplus T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ can be considereq as (or mlre properly, ate digseomkgpmic to) $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, but there are nohthelesv significant differences, namely that flr qkadratic energy, onf model supkkrtf torque whild the otheg does not! (Jn fact, we can construct an isooorphnsm of $(T\oplos T)L$ and $T^{(2)}M$ as hibre fundles usinn a metsic – ser appendix **\[subspp:tectRNM\]** for more details. Iowever, the isomorphysm depengs on the metric, ane rhe cmmplate uuftr or tecfor fiflda to $(T\oplua T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ respectively do nou cjpmcide under fhe isjmjrphism.)

Dissipation bracket for $3$-bead chapns {#aubsec:diss3bead}
---------------------------------------

We continye to follow the same strategy as the bead-spring pairs to construct the dissipadion urxcktt for gye $3$-bead chain suspension.

Let $M = \mathbb{R}^n$, so we cwh odvntify $T^{(2)}M$ with $\mabhbb{R}^{3n}$ with coordimahex $(x^i,y^i,z^i)$. Consiaer thz uaual Riemannian mehric $g$ jn $\marhbb{R}^{3n}$, whych van be written as $$\begin{aligbed}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \eelta_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\machrm{d}x^j + \delca_{ij}\majhrm{d}y^o\mathrm{d}y^j + \delta_{ij}\mathxm{d}z^i\mzthrm{d}z^j.\end{wligned}$$ Tgd construction ow Rpematnian meufics on higher orqer tangeit buudles of gengral Riqmannian mwnifolds is considered ij appgndix **\[dpp:vect\]**.

We fan define the dissipation bracket $$\begin{aligngd}
(F,C) = \pnt \mathri{d}^nx\msthrm{d}^ny\mathri{d}^nz \ \psi \ \widgtilde{g}\leyt(  \maghrm{d}\left(\fgac{\delta H}{\delta \psi}\ridht), \mathrm
M$ will generally have different kinematic properties structure $T^{(2)}M$. This is difficult to the space itself but how it is For example, when $M=\mathbb{R}^n$, both $(T\oplus and $T^{(2)}M$ can be considered as (or more properly, are diffeomorphic to) $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, there are nontheless significant differences, namely that for quadratic energy, one model supports while other not! fact, we can construct an isomorphism of $(T\oplus T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ as fibre bundles using a – see appendix **\[subapp:vectTNM\]** for more details. However, isomorphism depends on the and the complete lifts of fields $(T\oplus T)M$ $T^{(2)}M$ do coincide under the Dissipation bracket for $3$-bead chains {#subsec:diss3bead} --------------------------------------- We continue to follow the same strategy as the bead-spring to construct bracket for $3$-bead suspension. $M = \mathbb{R}^n$, can identify $T^{(2)}M$ with $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$ with the usual Riemannian metric $g$ on $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, which be written $$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{d}s^2 = \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\mathrm{d}y^j \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}z^i\mathrm{d}z^j.\end{aligned}$$ The construction of Riemannian metrics on higher tangent bundles of general Riemannian manifolds is considered in appendix **\[app:vect\]**. We can define the $$\begin{aligned} (F,G) = \int \ \psi \ \mathrm{d}\left(\frac{\delta \psi}\right),
M$ will generally have differeNt kinematiC propErtIes To The sTrucTure involving $T^{(2)}m$.

this Difference is difficult tO see iF wE Only COnSider The confIGuRATioN sPaCe iTsELf But noT hoW it is coNstructed. FOr eXaMple, when $M=\matHBb{r}^n$, both $(T\oplUs T)m$ and $T^{(2)}M$ can be cOnsIdered As (Or mORe proPerLy, are DiffeoMOrphic To) $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$, bUT there ARe nonthELEsS sigNificant differencES, nAMely that for quaDratic EnERgY, ONe mOdeL supports tOrQue whILe the otHEr DOES noT! (in fact, we can coNstruct an isOMorPhism oF $(T\OplUS T)M$ and $t^{(2)}M$ as fIbRE buNdles using a MetrIc – see appeNdix **\[suBApp:vecttnM\]** for moRe detaIls. howEver, THe IsOmoRpHIsm DEpEndS On tHe metric, AnD tHe comPletE LIFTs of VecTor fIelds To $(T\oplus T)M$ and $t^{(2)}M$ rEspeCTivEly do Not coInciDe Under The isoMorphIsM.)

Dissipation braCket For $3$-bead chAinS {#sUbsEc:Diss3bEAd}
---------------------------------------

We coNtiNue To folloW the samE StrAtEGY As The bead-spring pairs To CONsTruct the DissipATiOn BRacket foR tHe $3$-bEad cHAIn susPensIOn.

let $M = \mathBb{R}^n$, so WE cAn IdentifY $T^{(2)}m$ with $\mAtHbb{r}^{3n}$ wIth coORdinAtes $(x^i,Y^i,z^i)$. ConsIder tHE usual RiemanniAN metric $g$ on $\matHBb{r}^{3N}$, WhICh caN be Written as $$\beGin{aLIgneD}
\matHRm{D}s^2 = \dELta_{ij}\MathrM{d}X^I\mAThrm{d}x^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrM{d}Y^i\mathRm{d}y^j + \Delta_{ij}\mathrm{D}z^i\mathrm{d}Z^J.\ENd{aligneD}$$ The COnSTruction of RiemAnniaN metrics on HIgher ordEr tanGent bundLes of geneRAL RiemannIan ManIfoLds IS CoNsidered in appENDix **\[aPp:Vect\]**.

We cAn dEfine thE diSsiPatIon BrAcket $$\begiN{aligned}
(f,G) = \InT \mAtHrm{D}^nx\maTHrm{d}^ny\maThRm{d}^Nz \ \Psi \ \WidetILde{g}\leFt(  \matHrm{d}\LeFt(\FRac{\Delta F}{\dELtA \PSi}\riGhT), \mAthrM
M$ will generally have dif ferent kin emati c p rop er ties  tothe structurei nvol ving $T^{(2)}M$.

This  diff er e ncei sdiffi cult to se e ifwe  o nly  c o ns iderthe  config uration sp ace  i tself but no t  h ow it is c ons tructed. For  ex ample,  w hen $M=\m ath bb{R} ^n$, b o th $(T \oplus T) M$ and $T ^ {(2)}M$ c an  beconsidered as (or mo r e properly, ar e diff eo m or p h icto)  $\mathbb{ R} ^{3n} $ , but t h er e a ren ontheless sig nificant di f fer ences,  n ame l y that  forqu a dra tic energy,  one  model su pports torquew hile th e othe r d oes  not !  ( In  fa ct ,  we ca n c o nst ruct anis om orphi sm o f $ ( T\op lus  T)M $ and  $T^{(2)}M$ a s f ibre bun dlesusing  a m et ric –  see a ppend ix  **\[subapp:vec tTNM \]** formor edet ai ls. H o wever,  th e i somorph ism dep e nds  o n t he  metric, and the c om p l et e liftsof vec t or  f i elds to$( T\o plus T )M$ a nd $ T ^{ (2)}M$ r espect i ve ly  do not  c oincid eund erthe i s omor phism. )

Dissi patio n  bracket for $ 3 $-bead chains {# s u bs e c:di ss3 bead}
----- ---- - ---- ---- - -- --- - ----- ----- -- - -We continue to foll ow  the s ame s trategy as th e bead-spr i n g  pairs t o co n st r uct the dissip ation  bracket f o r the $3 $-bea d chainsuspensio n . 

Let $M  =\ma thb b{R } ^ n$ , so we can i d e ntif y$T^{(2) }M$  with $ \ma thb b{R }^{ 3n }$ with c oordinat es  $ (x ^i ,y^ i,z^i ) $. Consi de r t he  us ual R i emanni an me tric  $ g$ on$\mathb b {R } ^ {3n} $,  w hich  ca nbe wr itte n  as  $$\beg in{aligne d}\ math rm {d }s^2 =\delta_{ij}\m at hrm{d}x^i\ ma thr m{d}x^ j + \delta _{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\math r m{d}y^j  +\delt a_{i j}\mathrm {d} z^i\ma thr m {d}z^j .\end{ align ed }$$ T he co n s tr uct io n of Riema n n ian  metr ic s on  higher  order tangent bun d les  of general R iem anni a n  m ani f ol d s i sc ons i d ered in appendi x **\[app: ve c t\ ]**.

We c a n d ef ine the  dissip ation bracket  $$\begin {aligned} 
( F,G) =  \i nt \mathrm {d}^nx\m athrm{d}^ n y\mat h rm {d}^n z \  \psi\\wi detil de{g}\ l eft (  \m athrm{ d} \left( \frac {\ delta F} {\delta \psi}\right), \ mathrm 
M$ will_generally have_different kinematic properties to_the structure_involving_$T^{(2)}M$.

This difference_is_difficult to see_if we only_consider the configuration space_itself but not_how_it is constructed. For example, when $M=\mathbb{R}^n$, both $(T\oplus T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ can be_considered_as (or_more_properly,_are diffeomorphic to) $\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, but_there are nontheless significant differences,_namely that_for quadratic energy, one model supports torque while_the_other does not!_(In fact, we can construct an isomorphism of $(T\oplus_T)M$ and $T^{(2)}M$ as fibre bundles_using a metric_–_see_appendix **\[subapp:vectTNM\]** for more_details. However, the isomorphism depends on_the metric, and the complete lifts_of vector fields to $(T\oplus T)M$ and_$T^{(2)}M$ respectively do not coincide under_the isomorphism.)

Dissipation bracket for $3$-bead_chains {#subsec:diss3bead}
---------------------------------------

We_continue to follow the same_strategy as the_bead-spring pairs_to construct the_dissipation bracket for the $3$-bead chain_suspension.

Let $M =_\mathbb{R}^n$, so we can identify $T^{(2)}M$_with_$\mathbb{R}^{3n}$ with coordinates_$(x^i,y^i,z^i)$._Consider_the usual_Riemannian metric $g$_on_$\mathbb{R}^{3n}$, which_can_be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}x^i\mathrm{d}x^j_+_\delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}y^i\mathrm{d}y^j + \delta_{ij}\mathrm{d}z^i\mathrm{d}z^j.\end{aligned}$$ The construction of Riemannian_metrics on higher order_tangent_bundles of general Riemannian_manifolds is considered in appendix_**\[app:vect\]**.

We can define the dissipation bracket_$$\begin{aligned}
(F,G) =_\int \mathrm{d}^nx\mathrm{d}^ny\mathrm{d}^nz_\ \psi \ \widetilde{g}\left(  \mathrm{d}\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta \psi}\right), \mathrm