EOMs for T Shaped Pendulum with Non-Conservative Force

  • Thread starter Thread starter bcarlson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Pendulum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving equations of motion for a "T" shaped pendulum influenced by non-conservative forces. The system consists of a base mass constrained to move in the x-direction, connected to a linear spring that restores it to the x = 0 position, while friction is neglected. The top mass can rotate around the base, with a torsional spring providing restorative forces to maintain vertical alignment. The user seeks feedback on their virtual work calculations and whether moment-work considerations are necessary. The thread aims to clarify the correct approach to modeling this dynamic system.
bcarlson
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
EOMs for "T" Shaped Pendulum with Non-Conservative Force

I have a set of equations of motion I'm trying to derive. This problem represents a 2-d approximation of the real system that I'm trying to derive equations of motion for modeling purposes.

There is a base mass and a top mass.

The base mass is constrained to move only in the x direction and is connected by a linear spring to ground which is meant to produce forces that restore the mass to the x = 0 position. Friction is ignored.

The top mass designated (the "T" shaped pendulum) can rotate about the point at the center of the base coordinate system. A torsional spring is operating on the pendulum to produce forces that restore it to the vertical position.

I've chosen my generalized coordinates to be x (corresponding to x-base) and theta (rotation of pendulum from horizontal).

I will include my derivations in reply to this post but my main question is whether I did the virtual work properly? Do I need to for any sort of moment-work?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


System Figures
 

Attachments

  • TShapedPendulumMovment.png
    TShapedPendulumMovment.png
    12.9 KB · Views: 768
  • TShapedPendulumMovment_Vectors.png
    TShapedPendulumMovment_Vectors.png
    9.7 KB · Views: 715


Pages 1 through 3
 

Attachments

  • 2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page1.png
    2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page1.png
    22.8 KB · Views: 614
  • 2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page2.png
    2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page2.png
    12.9 KB · Views: 747
  • 2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page3.png
    2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page3.png
    26.6 KB · Views: 640


Pages 4 through 5
 

Attachments

  • 2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page4.png
    2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page4.png
    32.6 KB · Views: 639
  • 2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page5.png
    2DStrikerMovementEquationDerivation_page5.png
    25.9 KB · Views: 626
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