Lagrangian function of a double undamped pendulum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the Lagrangian for a double undamped pendulum, specifically addressing the challenges posed by the second angle φ2, which is measured from the line connecting the two pivot points. Participants suggest starting with the kinetic energy equations for both masses and emphasize the importance of correctly incorporating rotational kinetic energy. They discuss the calculations for the velocities of the pendulum components in terms of their angles and lengths, ultimately leading to the necessary algebraic expressions. The conversation concludes with confirmation that the proposed method should yield the desired results. The collaborative effort highlights the complexities involved in modeling the dynamics of a double pendulum system.
PaBlo14101066
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
I must find the Lagrangian for an undamped pendulum using the diagram showed below, I've no idea what to do with the second angle φ2 because is measured from the line that joins the two pivot points.
1605973261966.png

The ecuations I must obtain are as follows
1605973305616.png

I get so many different things but I can't reach the desired result
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PaBlo14101066 said:
I've no idea what to do
If all else fails, you could try $$T = {1\over 2} m_1\Bigl(\dot x_1^2+\dot y_1^2\Bigr) + {1\over 2} m_2\Bigl(\dot x_2^2+\dot y_2^2\Bigr) $$ but of course you already know how the subscript 1 term ends up, so the work is in the ##m_2## term.

Idem ##V##.
 
  • Like
Likes PaBlo14101066
BvU said:
If all else fails, you could try $$T = {1\over 2} m_1\Bigl(\dot x_1^2+\dot y_1^2\Bigr) + {1\over 2} m_2\Bigl(\dot x_2^2+\dot y_2^2\Bigr) $$ but of course you already know how the subscript 1 term ends up, so the work is in the ##m_2## term.

Idem ##V##.
Yes, I know, and also there must be a rotational kinetic energy, I made the algebra considering that φ2 is measured from the vertical and obtained
1605974501155.png

But even though I consider $$\phi_2=\phi_1+\phi'$$ I don't get to the equations of the second image
 
Don't you get, in terms of ##\hat{x}## and ##\hat{y}##,$$\dot{\mathbf{r}}_1 = l_1 \dot{\varphi}_1 \begin{pmatrix} \cos{\varphi_1} \\ \sin{\varphi_1} \end{pmatrix}$$and$$\dot{\mathbf{r}}_2 = l_3 \dot{\varphi}_1 \begin{pmatrix} \cos{\varphi_1} \\ \sin{\varphi_1} \end{pmatrix}

+ l_2 (\dot{\varphi}_1 + \dot{\varphi}_2) \begin{pmatrix} \cos{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \\ \sin{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \end{pmatrix}

$$Now you can find ##\dot{\mathbf{r}}_1 \cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}}_1## and ##\dot{\mathbf{r}}_2 \cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}}_2##. Does that work?
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Likes BvU and PaBlo14101066
etotheipi said:
Don't you get, in terms of ##\hat{x}## and ##\hat{y}##,$$\dot{\mathbf{r}}_1 = l_1 \dot{\varphi}_1 \begin{pmatrix} \cos{\varphi_1} \\ \sin{\varphi_1} \end{pmatrix}$$and$$\dot{\mathbf{r}}_2 = l_3 \dot{\varphi}_1 \begin{pmatrix} \cos{\varphi_1} \\ \sin{\varphi_1} \end{pmatrix}

+ l_2 (\dot{\varphi}_1 + \dot{\varphi}_2) \begin{pmatrix} \cos{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \\ \sin{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \end{pmatrix}

$$Now you can find ##\dot{\mathbf{r}}_1 \cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}}_1## and ##\dot{\mathbf{r}}_2 \cdot \dot{\mathbf{r}}_2##. Does that work?
I think that's it, I would have to do the algebra, but as far as it looks, looks fine
 
PaBlo14101066 said:
I think that's it, I would have to do the algebra, but as far as it looks, looks fine

Yes, I believe it does indeed get what you're after. The only fiddly part of the calculation is$$
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix} \cos{\varphi_1} \\ \sin{\varphi_1} \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} \cos{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \\ \sin{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \end{pmatrix} &=

\cos{\varphi_1} \left( \cos{\varphi_1} \cos{\varphi_2} - \sin{\varphi_1} \sin{\varphi_2}\right) + \sin{\varphi_1} \left( \sin{\varphi_1} \cos{\varphi_2} + \cos{\varphi_1} \sin{\varphi_2}\right)

\\
&= \cos{\varphi_2} \left( \cos^2{\varphi_1} + \sin^2{\varphi_1} \right) \\

&= \cos{\varphi_2}

\end{align*}
$$but the rest should fall out okay.
 
  • Like
Likes docnet and PaBlo14101066
etotheipi said:
Yes, I believe it does indeed get what you're after. The only fiddly part of the calculation is$$
\begin{align*}
\begin{pmatrix} \cos{\varphi_1} \\ \sin{\varphi_1} \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} \cos{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \\ \sin{(\varphi_1 + \varphi_2)} \end{pmatrix} &=

\cos{\varphi_1} \left( \cos{\varphi_1} \cos{\varphi_2} - \sin{\varphi_1} \sin{\varphi_2}\right) + \sin{\varphi_1} \left( \sin{\varphi_1} \cos{\varphi_2} + \cos{\varphi_1} \sin{\varphi_2}\right)

\\
&= \cos{\varphi_2} \left( \cos^2{\varphi_1} + \sin^2{\varphi_1} \right) \\

&= \cos{\varphi_2}

\end{align*}
$$but the rest should fall out okay.
Yes, that's it. Thank you very much. You've earned heaven (whatever heaven is to you) :)
 
  • Love
Likes etotheipi
Back
Top