sjmacewan
- 34
- 0
OK, the answer for this problem seems a bit high to me, so I'm going to ask if it all seems alright.
You have a 1m rod of no mass, fixed so that it may rotate about it's center. At the top of the rod is a mass m1 (0.5kg), and the bottom is a mass m2 (1.0kg). Find the angular frequency assuming a small amplitude of oscillations.
I just stared at it for about an hour, trying to find a way to get it into the form
\ddot{\psi} + \omega_0 ^2 \psi = 0
Eventually i went at it with torques, using the \tau = r x F forumla.
So...
\tau = rm_1g \sin (180- \theta) - rm_2g \sin (\theta)
and using small angle approximation, both sins go to theta.
\tau = rg (m_2 - m_1) \theta
\tau = I \ddot{\theta} = -rg (m_2 - m_1) \theta
I = \sum m r^2 = (m_1 + m_2) r^2
\ddot{\theta} = \frac{-rg (m_2 - m_1)}{r^2 (m_1+m_2)}
\ddot{\theta} + \frac{rg (m_2 - m_1)}{r^2 (m_1+m_2)} = 0
Which is in the right form. Meaning that the frequency is:
\omega_0 = \sqrt{\frac{g(m_2-m_1)}{r(m_1+m_2)}}
Now, that may be ALL wrong, but it's what first came to mind. I end up with 2.6Hz for an answer which seems a bit off...
Thanks for any redirections/confirmations/help you can give!
(if the tex is messy I'm working on it still!)
You have a 1m rod of no mass, fixed so that it may rotate about it's center. At the top of the rod is a mass m1 (0.5kg), and the bottom is a mass m2 (1.0kg). Find the angular frequency assuming a small amplitude of oscillations.
I just stared at it for about an hour, trying to find a way to get it into the form
\ddot{\psi} + \omega_0 ^2 \psi = 0
Eventually i went at it with torques, using the \tau = r x F forumla.
So...
\tau = rm_1g \sin (180- \theta) - rm_2g \sin (\theta)
and using small angle approximation, both sins go to theta.
\tau = rg (m_2 - m_1) \theta
\tau = I \ddot{\theta} = -rg (m_2 - m_1) \theta
I = \sum m r^2 = (m_1 + m_2) r^2
\ddot{\theta} = \frac{-rg (m_2 - m_1)}{r^2 (m_1+m_2)}
\ddot{\theta} + \frac{rg (m_2 - m_1)}{r^2 (m_1+m_2)} = 0
Which is in the right form. Meaning that the frequency is:
\omega_0 = \sqrt{\frac{g(m_2-m_1)}{r(m_1+m_2)}}
Now, that may be ALL wrong, but it's what first came to mind. I end up with 2.6Hz for an answer which seems a bit off...
Thanks for any redirections/confirmations/help you can give!
(if the tex is messy I'm working on it still!)
Last edited: