Moments & Pendulum: Different Lengths, Same Oscillation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sgstudent
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moments Pendulum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between forces, moments, and pendulum oscillation periods. It confirms that the addition of moments from two forces acting at different angles can be expressed as r x a + r x b = r x (a + b). The conversation also explores why pendulums of different lengths have varying oscillation times, emphasizing that a longer pendulum covers a greater distance, resulting in a longer period. The mathematical explanation provided indicates that the period of a pendulum is directly proportional to its length, derived from the motion equations. Thus, longer pendulums inherently take more time to complete an oscillation.
sgstudent
Messages
726
Reaction score
3
if i have two forces acting at two different angles at a same spot will the addition of the moments of the two forces be the same as the moment whereby i take the net force of the two forces and get the moment of the net force of the same two forces?

is there a way to explain why for the same mass of the bob, two different lengths of the pendulum will have different times to have a complete oscillation using moments to explain it. Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi sgstudent! :smile:
sgstudent said:
if i have two forces acting at two different angles at a same spot will the addition of the moments of the two forces be the same as the moment whereby i take the net force of the two forces and get the moment of the net force of the same two forces?

yes … r x a + r x b = r x (a + b) :wink:
is there a way to explain why for the same mass of the bob, two different lengths of the pendulum will have different times to have a complete oscillation using moments to explain it.

yes, the moment tells you the angular acceleration :smile:
 
tiny-tim said:
hi sgstudent! :smile:


yes … r x a + r x b = r x (a + b) :wink:


yes, the moment tells you the angular acceleration :smile:

Thanks tiny Tim. However, I don't really know the explanation using moments on why a longer pendulum will have longer periods than shorter ones. Since they are longer so won't their moment be greater? Thanks! :smile:
 
The longer the pendulum, the longer the distance it has to cover to complete one period. Why would you think the time to cover this longer distance would be shorter?

If you want a detailed answer:
Suppose the pedulum has mass m centered at distance L from the pivot. There is a downward force of strength -mg. But the pendulum mass can only move around the circumference of the circle or radius L and the component of force parallel to the circumference is -mg sin(\theta) where \theta is the angle the pendulum makes with the vertical.

If we measure \theta in radians, the angle \theta corresponds to a distance around the arc of s= L\theta and so the linear velocity is v= ds/dt= L d\theta/dt and the acceleration is a= dv/dt= L d^2/theta/dt^2. Since "mass times acceleration= force", the motion is given by
ma= mL d^\theta/dt^2= -mg cos(\theta)

That is a badly "non-linear" equation so there is no simple exact solution but there are a number of ways to approximate it. One is to note that for small angles, cos(\theta) is approximately \theta itself so we can approximate the equation by
mLd^2\theta/dt^2= -mg\theta

That is a second order linear equation with constant coefficients. It has "characteristic equation" Lr^2=-g which has "characteristic roots" \pm\sqrt{g/L}. That, turn, tells us that two independent solutions are sin(\sqrt{gt/L} and cos(\sqrt{gt/L}. That will have period given by gt/L= 2\pi so that t= 2L/g which is directly proportional to L- the larger L, the longer the period.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top