Behavior of triple pendulum with heavy end mass

AI Thread Summary
A triple pendulum with a heavy end mass exhibits unusual twitching and oscillating behavior, particularly when simulated without friction and with massless rods. The simulation shows that while the total energy remains constant, the first and second masses move erratically relative to each other, achieving high velocities. This phenomenon may be attributed to the unrealistic assumptions of massless rods and frictionless joints, which do not reflect real-world physics. The extreme accelerations of the intermediate masses are likely artifacts of these simplifications. Overall, such behavior raises questions about the physical realizability of the system under these conditions.
ellipsis
Messages
158
Reaction score
24
Is a triple pendulum with a significantly heavy end-mass supposed to spaz around?

Using the Euler-Lagrange formula in Mathematica, I've found (and simulated http://poteat.github.io/triplependulum.html) a triple pendulum system with arbitrary masses and lengths. The rods are massless (so no moment of inertia's), and I've generalized the state equations in terms of angular coordinates. There is no friction.

There's a sanity check in the simulation: The total energy is quite constant.

When you make the end mass very heavy though (and decrease the time-step to compensate for the numerical stiffness), the system has a very odd twitching, oscillating behavior. Is this correct? Has this phenomenon been seen elsewhere, on other simulations? Some links would be appreciated.

I tried googling "behavior of triple pendulum with heavy end-mass", but nothing came up. Go to that link, set "Mass 3" to 100 or so, and "steps per frame" to 1000 or so to see what I mean.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it would help for you to define the term "spaz around".
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I think it would help for you to define the term "spaz around".

I was going to attach a .gif animation of the simulation, but I couldn't get it to work. The trajectory of the end mass is fairly smooth, but the first and second masses bounce around wildly relative to each other, and attain quite high velocities (but total energy is constant).

When I get some more time (Exam week for me), I'm going to figure out how to do .gif screen captures.
 
I suspect that's an artifact of the fact that you are assuming massless rods and frictionless joints. This makes the system not really physically realizable, since you'd never see those kinds of accelerations of the middle of the rod or the joints due to the friction in the joints and the inertia of the rods, as well as inherent damping from things like air resistance. When you ignore all of these other inertias and loss terms, you do tend to get a lot of movement from the middle masses, since the end mass (being rather massive) can induce very high accelerations in the intermediate masses, but I suspect you'd have a very hard time making a system behave like that in reality.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top