Four-Bar Parallel Linkage Pendulum

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
62 replies · 7K views
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:
Physics news on Phys.org
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:
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: