Period of a Pendulum (VERY TOUGH differential equation)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the period of a pendulum of a given length, focusing on the differential equation \ddot{ \theta} = g \cdot sin( \theta) for angular distance over time. The original poster seeks assistance in solving this equation, noting the importance of energy conservation and phase-space analysis in understanding pendulum dynamics. Suggestions include using the small angle approximation or Taylor series to simplify the problem, which can lead to elliptic integrals. The conversation also touches on related topics like the inverted pendulum and its unique behaviors. Overall, the thread emphasizes the complexity of pendulum motion and the mathematical approaches needed to analyze it.
Izzhov
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
I have recently taken an interest in the idea that all pendulums of the same length are isochronous, and am currently trying to figure out an equation for the period of a pendulum of a given length. I started out by trying to find an equation for the angular distance the pendulum travels as a function of time, so I drew some vectors, and this is what it boiled down to:
\ddot{ \theta} = g \cdot sin( \theta)
where theta is angular distance as a function of t (time).
I realize that if I can can solve this differential equation, solve the result for t and convert theta to arc length over radius length, I will have solved the problem, but I have no idea how to solve this differential equation in the first place. Can someone help?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Detailled discussions of this topic can be found in many textbooks on classical mechanics.
A lot is also available on the net.
Start with this: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Pendulum.html.
Look also on wiki and there: http://tabitha.phas.ubc.ca/wiki/index.php/Hamilton's_Equations .
The conservation of energy is useful to look at.
Look also for a "phase-space" analysis of this system.
Of interrest: the stability of the trajectory near the "x-point", a starting point for studying chaotic motion.

But, of course your choice depends on your background and your own objectives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For a pendulum without air resistance, you can calculate the period exactly for an arbitary amplitude less than \pi /2[/tex] (after which, the pendulum free falls) from the energy equation<br /> <br /> Your equation looks incorrect. Did you draw the FBD of the pendulum properly? Once you get it, to solve the pendulum equation, you might want to try to<br /> a) Make the small angle approximation<br /> b) Make a better approximation with a taylor series, and then solve the DE
 
Last edited:
You can reduce the problem (through conservation of energy) to what's called an elliptic integral. This leads you to a study of elliptic integrals, and their various limits, which is of some interest.

Another interesting problem is the so-called "inverted pendulum" where you drive its base with a frequency \omega. This leads to all manner of cool behavior, including eventually a stabile fixed point standing straight up!
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
76
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top