Anharmonic Effects in a Simple Pendulum with 2s Period

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pendulum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the smallest amplitude at which anharmonic effects become noticeable in a simple pendulum designed to have a period of 2 seconds. Participants explore the relationship between amplitude and period, particularly in the context of the small angle approximation and its limitations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how amplitude affects the measurement of the period T when observing anharmonic effects.
  • Another participant clarifies that the discussion concerns when the small angle approximation is no longer valid, which is critical for solving the pendulum's differential equation.
  • A mathematical approach is proposed involving Galileo's equation, with initial conditions leading to an expression for the period T that incorporates the amplitude.
  • There is a suggestion that numerical methods may be necessary to analyze the pendulum's behavior beyond certain amplitudes.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between the relative error bound (denoted as ε) and the uncertainty in period measurement, specifically whether it corresponds to the 0.03s timing accuracy.
  • Clarification is provided that ε represents a relative error bound calculated from the expected period and the uncertainty in measurement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of amplitude in observing anharmonic effects, with some asserting it is not relevant to the measurement of T, while others emphasize its importance in the context of the small angle approximation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise conditions under which anharmonic effects become noticeable.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps related to the derivation of the period T and the implications of the small angle approximation. There are also dependencies on the definitions of terms like amplitude and relative error, which may affect interpretations.

cj
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have a simple pendulum whose period was designed to be exactly 2 seconds. I am able to time the period reliably to within 0.03s. What is the smallest amplitude, in degrees, I would need to use before I could see the anharmonic effects in this pendulum?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you are 'seeing' the anharmonic effects only through a measurement of T, I can't see how the amplitude plays any role at all.

Perhaps, I don't understand exactly what you're trying to do here...
 
There's a point, beyond which, it won't behave
harmonically -- rather anharmonically.

The value of T is related to this.

Gokul43201 said:
If you are 'seeing' the anharmonic effects only through a measurement of T, I can't see how the amplitude plays any role at all.

Perhaps, I don't understand exactly what you're trying to do here...
 
The question is basically when the 'small angle' approximation is no longer valid.
We can't solve the the differential equation without this approximation:
[tex]\ddot\theta+\frac{mgl}{I}\sin\theta =0[/tex]
Where [itex]\theta[/itex] is the angle with the vertical, m is the mass of your pendulum,l is the distance from the center of mass to the axis of rotation and I is the moment of intertia about the axis of rotation.

When the angle is small, then [itex]\sin\theta\approx \theta[/itex] and we can solve de diferrential equation.

I think it must be solved numerically. A way to measure when visible anharmonic effects arise is to see when the period of the oscillation is greater than 0.03 s off with the expected value. Don't know how to calculate it though...
 
We may go a few steps further, before resorting to numerical means:
We start with Galileo's equation, and add a couple of initial conditions:
[tex]\ddot{\theta}+\omega^{2}\sin\theta=0,\theta(0)=\theta_{0},\dot{\theta}(0)=0[/tex]
We multiply the equation with [tex]\dot{\theta}[/tex] integrate, rearrange, and utilize intitial conditions, and gain:
[tex]\dot{\theta}=\pm\omega\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}[/tex]

The negative root is used on time intervals where [tex]\theta\to{-\theta_{0}}[/tex]
(assuming [tex]\theta_{0}>0[/tex])

We thereby gain:
[tex]T=\frac{2}{\omega}\int_{-\theta_{0}}^{\theta_{0}}\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}}[/tex]

In the harmonic case, we have [tex]T_{h}=\frac{2\pi}{\omega}[/tex]

Hence, given a relative error bound [tex]\epsilon[/tex] we gain the bound of the initial angle as:
[tex]|1-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\theta_{0}}^{\theta_{0}}\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}}|<\epsilon[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much arildno.

Question: does the [tex]\epsilon[/tex] in the equation

[tex]|1-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\theta_{0}}^{\theta_{0}}\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}}|<\epsilon[/tex]

specifically refer to the uncertainty (in my case, 0.03)?

arildno said:
We may go a few steps further, before resorting to numerical means:
We start with Galileo's equation, and add a couple of initial conditions:
[tex]\ddot{\theta}+\omega^{2}\sin\theta=0,\theta(0)=\theta_{0},\dot{\theta}(0)=0[/tex]
We multiply the equation with [tex]\dot{\theta}[/tex] integrate, rearrange, and utilize intitial conditions, and gain:
[tex]\dot{\theta}=\pm\omega\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}[/tex]

The negative root is used on time intervals where [tex]\theta\to{-\theta_{0}}[/tex]
(assuming [tex]\theta_{0}>0[/tex])

We thereby gain:
[tex]T=\frac{2}{\omega}\int_{-\theta_{0}}^{\theta_{0}}\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}}[/tex]

In the harmonic case, we have [tex]T_{h}=\frac{2\pi}{\omega}[/tex]

Hence, given a relative error bound [tex]\epsilon[/tex] we gain the bound of the initial angle as:
[tex]|1-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\theta_{0}}^{\theta_{0}}\frac{d\theta}{\sqrt{2(\cos\theta-\cos\theta_{0})}}|<\epsilon[/tex]
 
No, it does not!
[tex]\epsilon[/tex] is the relative error bound, that is:

[tex]\epsilon=|\frac{(2\pm0.03)-2}{2}|=0.015[/tex]
 
Got it -- thanks again!

arildno said:
No, it does not!
[tex]\epsilon[/tex] is the relative error bound, that is:

[tex]\epsilon=|\frac{(2\pm0.03)-2}{2}|=0.015[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K