Four-Bar Parallel Linkage Pendulum

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculations and dynamics of a four-bar parallel linkage system functioning as a pendulum. Participants explore the potential energy, kinetic energy, and moment of inertia involved in this system, particularly focusing on how to calculate angular velocity and the effects of the rods' interactions as they move through different positions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks guidance on calculating angular velocity for a four-bar linkage system, noting the complexity introduced by the rods crossing each other and the need to account for their moments of inertia.
  • Another participant suggests that the length variation of the parallel links should be minimal to avoid extreme angular acceleration as the system approaches certain angles.
  • Concerns are raised about the chaotic behavior of the system as it nears ±90° rotation, with implications for the forces acting on the rods and joints.
  • A participant describes their prototype's construction, highlighting the play in the joints and the necessity of adjusting rod lengths to simulate crossing accurately.
  • There is a proposal to use conservation of energy to estimate the speeds of the center of the attachment when released from a height, assuming the bob remains horizontal.
  • One participant questions how to incorporate the significant weight of the suspension rods into the calculations, given their impact on the system's dynamics.
  • Another suggests simplifying the analysis by modeling one rod as having double the mass, positioned between the original two rods, to facilitate calculations.
  • Participants discuss how to treat the bob as a separate body in calculations, considering two cases based on whether the bob remains parallel to the ground or changes orientation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the rods' lengths and the chaotic behavior of the system. There is no consensus on the best approach to calculate angular velocity or how to effectively incorporate the moments of inertia of the rods into the analysis.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations related to the precision of the prototype, the assumptions about rod lengths and their effects on dynamics, and the potential for chaotic behavior as the system approaches critical angles.

  • #61
Something is a miss because using the datum at the fulcrum:

$$ PE_{r}( \theta) = -m_r g \frac{r}{2} \cos \theta $$

$$ PE_{b}( \theta) = -M_b g r \cos \theta $$

I don't know how you would be getting the same result...but it doesn't matter we are going to work it out. Do you agree that from the datum at the fulcrum both of those( above ) describe the potential energy of each mass in the pendulum?

The total potential energy as a function of ## \theta ## is given by:

$$ PE(\theta) = -rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \cos \theta $$

Are you in agreement up until there?
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #62
Let's just write the equation like below and focus on the potential energy which is giving the confusion:

$$ PE_o = PE( \theta) + KE_{total}$$

$$ -rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \cos \theta_o = -rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \cos \theta + KE_{total} $$

$$ \begin{align} KE_{total} &= rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \cos \theta - rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \cos \theta_o \tag*{} \\ &= rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \left( \cos \theta - \cos \theta_o \right) \tag*{} \end{align} $$

That is the result for the total kinetic energy when PE = 0 is at the pivot.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Now, comparing that when PE = 0 is at a distance ##r## below the pivot:

$$ rg \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta_o \right) M_b + \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta_o \right) m_r \right] = rg \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta \right) M_b + \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta \right) m_r \right] + KE_{total} $$

$$ \begin{align} KE_{total} &= rg \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta_o \right) M_b + \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta_o \right) m_r \right] - \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta \right) M_b + \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta \right) m_r \right] \tag*{}\\ &= rg \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta_o \right) M_b + \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta_o \right) m_r - \left( 1- \cos \theta \right) M_b - \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta \right) m_r \right] \tag*{} \\ &= rg \left[ \cancel{M_b} - M_b \cos \theta_o + \cancel{m_r} - \frac{1}{2}m_r \cos \theta_o - \cancel{M_b} + M_b \cos \theta - \cancel{m_r} + \frac{1}{2}m_r \cos \theta \right] \tag*{} \\ &= rg \left[ M_b \left( \cos \theta - \cos \theta_o \right)+ \frac{1}{2} m_r \left( \cos \theta - \cos \theta_o \right) \right] \tag*{} \\ &= rg \left( \frac{m_r}{2}+ M_b \right) \left( \cos \theta - \cos \theta_o \right) \tag*{} \end{align} $$

The results are equivalent... this one is just much less clean and obvious perhaps.

It should be clear that all three of the results are not equivalent, as:

$$ rg \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta \right) M_b + \left( 1- \frac{1}{2}\cos \theta \right) m_r \right] \neq rg \left[ \left( 1- \cos \theta \right) M_b + \frac{1}{2}\left( 1- \cos \theta \right) m_r \right] = rg \left( M_b + \frac{m_r}{2} \right) \left( 1 - \cos \theta \right) $$
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
845
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K