Know acceleration as a function of position, can I find velocity?

AI Thread Summary
Acceleration of a pendulum can be expressed as a function of angle, and velocity can be found by integrating acceleration with respect to angle, but this requires careful consideration of the integration constant. Dimensional analysis raises concerns about the validity of this approach, particularly when integrating angular acceleration twice, which leads to contradictions in units. The correct method involves using the chain rule to relate angular velocity and acceleration, allowing for proper integration. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationships between angular quantities and their dimensions. Overall, the integration process must be approached with attention to the correct variables and their relationships.
Jonsson
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Hello I know acceleration of a pendulum as a function of angle. Can I find velocity by integration with respect to theta? My intuition says yes, but dimensional analysis tells me otherwise. What is right and wrong?

And what about work? Can I integrate tau = Ia with respect to theta and find work?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Marius
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jonsson said:
Hello I know acceleration of a pendulum as a function of angle. Can I find velocity by integration with respect to theta?
Yes, to within a constant of integration.

My intuition says yes, but dimensional analysis tells me otherwise. What is right and wrong?
Show us your dimensional analysis and we'll be more able to help.

And what about work? Can I integrate tau = Ia with respect to theta and find work?
yes (assuming that ##\tau## is a torque and ##a## is the angular acceleration).
 
Last edited:
I have acceleration, ##\vec{\alpha}(\theta)## for the pendulum given by:

$$
\vec{\alpha}(\theta) = -\hat{k}\left( \frac{L\,m\,g}{I} \right) \sin\theta
$$If I could use integration to find ##\omega##:

$$
\vec{\omega}(\theta) = \hat{k}\left( \frac{L\,m\,g}{I} \right) \cos\theta + \vec{C}
$$

But If could integrate again:

$$
\vec{\theta}(\theta) = -\vec{\alpha} + \vec{C}\theta + \vec{D}
$$

Question 1: Surely that cannot make sense? ## \vec{\theta}## as a function of itself?

Question 2: And looking at units, ##\alpha## is angular acceleration, so it must have units ##\rm s^{-2}##, if I integrate twice, i basically multiply by ##\theta## twice, which is dimensionless so I get ##\vec{\theta}(\theta) : \rm s^{-2}##. #\vec{\theta}## should have no dimensions. So think I have a contradiction. What is correct?

What have I misunderstood?

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,
Marius
 
Last edited:
Your first integration is wrong. \alpha is d\omega/dt, not d\omega/d\theta so you cannot integrate the right side with respect to \theta as it stands. You can use the chain rule to write d\omega/dt= (d\omega/d\theta)(d\theta/dt)= \omega d\omega/d\theta. So you can write your equation as
\omega d\omega/d\theta= -k\left(\frac{Lmg}{I}\right)sin(\theta)
which, when you separate variables, becomes
\omega d\omega= -k\left(\frac{Lmg}{I}\right)sin(\theta)d\theta

and integrate both sides.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
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