Free body diagram for hinged rods

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenge of deriving the dynamics equations for a double pendulum without using Lagrange methods. The main issue arises from the connection point of the two rods, which lacks mass, leading to uncertainty about using a Free Body Diagram. The user questions whether they can apply the diagram with only the tensions of the rods present at the pivot. They compare their findings with a referenced paper that includes a mass between the rods, noting discrepancies when setting the mass to zero. Clarification is sought on whether their approach is flawed, emphasizing the need for detailed calculations to assess the situation accurately.
joes1987
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello all!

First post! I've been meaning to join this board for a while. I'm an electronic engineer with interests in physics.

I set myself the challenge of trying to obtain the dynamics equations for a double pendulum setup without using Lagrange. (configuration in attached picture)

The issue I seem to be having centres around the point at which the 2 rods are connected. I don't have a mass at this point. Does this mean I cannot use a normal Free Body Diagram? If I am allowed to, then I have only 2 forces at this pivot point (I think!) - the tensions of each rod. However, I was looking at this link: http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/gonzalez/Teaching/Phys7221/DoublePendulum.pdf
which does a pretty similar problem using Newtons laws, the only difference is that they have a mass between the two rods. However, when I look at their equations (32) and (33) which are Newton's laws on the free-body diagram of this junction, and reduce the mass (m1) to zero, I don't get the same equation as I have.

When I work it out independently, I get: T1 = T2*cos(a - b), whereas the equations from that paper just don't make any sense when I set m1 = 0.

Am I doing something silly?

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • pendulum.JPG
    pendulum.JPG
    4 KB · Views: 523
Physics news on Phys.org
joes1987 said:
Am I doing something silly?
Probably, but if you don't show us exactly what you did, we cannot be sure.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top