How Does Standing Up Affect the Swing Period of a Child?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MuonMinus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Period Swing
Click For Summary
When a child stands up while swinging, their center of mass moves closer to the pivot point, affecting the swing's period. The period of a physical pendulum increases as the effective length (L) decreases, but the moment of inertia also changes, complicating the analysis. Some argue that treating the child as a simple pendulum simplifies calculations, although this may not accurately reflect real-world dynamics. The discussion highlights the importance of considering both moment of inertia and effective length when analyzing the swing's period. Ultimately, the relationship between standing and swing dynamics requires careful consideration of both physical principles.
MuonMinus
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Question: If a child gets up from sitting position to standing while swinging, how does the period change?

Homework Equations


Period of a physical pendulum: T = 2π√(I/mgL), where I is the moment of inertia and L is the distance between the pivot and center of mass
Period of a simple (mathematical) pendulum: T = 2π√(L/g), where L is the distance between the (point) mass and the pivot

The Attempt at a Solution


The suggested answer I have seen is that a child on a swing is a physical pendulum. When the a child gets up, his center of mass moves up closer to the pivot point, so L (see the equation above) decreases, and the period therefore increases.
The problem I have with this answer is that when child gets up, his/her moment of inertia changes as well - how this can be taken into consideration?

Another possible answer is to consider the child a simple pendulum, in which case, when he gets up, L decreases and the period also decreases. But, in a real world, a child on a swing cannot be approximated by a simple pendulum!

How should this question be approached?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I would treat the child as a simple pendulum, an ideal case.

In the real world a child on a swing is something to enjoy because it gives you some time to relax.
 
jedishrfu said:
I would treat the child as a simple pendulum, an ideal case.
This is probably how it was meant to be done. I just did not think it would be a reasonable approximation.

jedishrfu said:
In the real world a child on a swing is something to enjoy because it gives you some time to relax.

That's only if the child is old enough. Otherwise, it is a way to get exercise (by pushing), contemplating forced oscillations.
 
The problem I have with this answer is that when child gets up, his/her moment of inertia changes as well - how this can be taken into consideration?
Key is the word "up". With ##I = \int r^2 dm## and ##L = \int r dm## it becomes clear that ## I/(mL) ## decreases when changing from sitting to standing.

Might need the parallel axis theorem to finish this off: worst case is changing from point mass at ##L## (swing length), so ##I = mL^2##, to a rod of length ##l## at ##L - l/2##: $$(L-l/2)^2 + l^2/12 < L^2 \ \ ?$$ leads to ## l(l-3L) < 0 ## which we can assume true.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K