Can Torque Explain the Motion of an Ideal Pendulum?

AI Thread Summary
The motion of an ideal pendulum can be explained using torque, specifically through the equation for gravitational torque, which is mgL sin θ. By applying the moment of inertia (I) and the angular acceleration (α), the relationship I α = mgL sin θ can be established, leading to the differential equation for angular motion. For small angles, sin θ approximates θ, simplifying the equation to a linear form that describes simple harmonic motion. Even for larger angles, the conservation of energy principle holds, as the only force acting on the pendulum is gravity, allowing for the conversion between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. Thus, torque effectively describes the dynamics of an ideal pendulum.
zezima1
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Can the ideal pendulum, i.e. massless string etc., be explained using torque?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes - that's the usual way of doing it.
Welcome to PF :)
 
Gravitational torque about top of string = Force x perpendicular distance = mgL sin θ in which L is string length and θ is angle of string to vertical.

Using G = I \ddot{θ},

I \ddot{θ} = mgL sin θ

But I = mL^{2} and provided θ<< 1 rad, sin θ = θ

So mL^{2}\ddot{θ}= mgL θ

That is \ddot{θ} = (g/L)θ
 
... solve for a function of time, or parameterize by position and momentum - yeah.
 
Even when the angle is not small, (and for simplicity, I'll assume it is a point mass on the end of a rigid rod of negligible mass), we have:
\ddot{\theta} = - \frac{g}{L} sin(\theta)
Now, multiplying both sides by 2 \dot{\theta}, we get:
2 \dot{\theta} \ddot{\theta} = - 2 \frac{g}{L} \dot{\theta} sin(\theta)
And now, we can rewrite both sides to get:
\frac{d \dot{\theta}^2}{dt} = 2 \frac{g}{L} \frac{d cos(\theta)}{dt}
And now rearranging:
\frac{d ( \dot{\theta}^2 - 2 \frac{g}{L} cos(\theta))}{dt} = 0
So we have a conserved quantity. And as it happens, this is conservation of energy. The reason energy is conserved for the pendulum is because the only force acting in the direction of its movement is gravity. So the energy is converted from GPE to KE and vice versa.
 
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