Angular acceleration in terms of angular velocity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between angular acceleration and angular velocity in the context of pendulum motion. The user seeks clarification on the equation α = ω², which seems to be a conversion factor for radial acceleration but lacks a clear derivation in their textbook. The conversation highlights the derivation of angular frequency for a physical pendulum, showing how it relates to simple harmonic motion (SHM) through the equation τ = -Mglθ. The connection between angular frequency and the moment of inertia is established, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the underlying principles. The discussion concludes that a more detailed explanation or proof is necessary to fully grasp the transition to the square root relationship in the angular frequency formula.
Flipmeister
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I've been working on problems that deal with pendulums and I've noticed that a few of my answers require me to find the angular velocity, frequency, period of a pendulum. I managed to get the answer right every time, but there's a step that I didn't understand, namely converting angular acceleration to angular velocity by what seems to be using this relationship:

\alpha=\omega^2

Where in the heck does this come from? :confused: The book kind of skips this step in the examples and doesn't prove it at all, even though it proves just about every other equation it mentions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks like a conversion factor for radial acceleration.

F=m * v2/r = m * a(rad)

so a(rad) is proportional to w2.

You'd need to show the example in detail for anyone to say more than that.
 
Here's how the book derives ##w=\sqrt{\frac{Mgl}{I}}##, the angular frequency of a physical pendulum:

\tau=-Mgd=Mglsin\theta

If we restrict the angle to being small (<10 degrees), as we did for the simple pendulum, we can use the small-angle approximation to write

\tau=-Mgl\theta (eq 14.49)

From Chapter 12, Newton's second law for rotational motion is ##\alpha=\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2}=\frac{\tau}{I}## where I is the object's moment of inertia about the pivot point. Using eq. 14.49, we find

\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2}=\frac{-Mgl}{I}\theta

Comparison with eq. 14.32 (##\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=-\frac{k}{m}x##) shows that this is again the SHM equation of motion, this time with angular frequency

\omega=2\pi f=\sqrt\frac{Mgl}{I}

Something happens to get to that last step that doesn't add up for me... Why is Mgl/I square rooted?
 
It's justified here by comparison to an earlier expression for SHM Eq 14:32. In that section you will probably find a proof that f=1/2*pi sqrt(k/m)

There's a fair explanation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_harmonic_motion

It's just that the solution of that differential equation is a cosine with √k/m (you can prove that to yourself by substituting it back)
 
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