Longer pendulum, does frequency need to be increased or

  • Thread starter Thread starter Perseverence
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frequency Pendulum
AI Thread Summary
A motor driving a pendulum at its natural frequency must adjust its frequency based on the pendulum's length. As the length of the pendulum increases, the frequency decreases; thus, to maintain the same swing rate, the motor must decrease its frequency. The confusion arises from interpreting the problem statement, which implies using the natural frequency of the new length rather than forcing the old frequency onto it. Clarification of this concept helps resolve misunderstandings about pendulum dynamics. Engaging in discussions on physics forums can alleviate confusion and enhance understanding of complex topics.
Perseverence
Messages
88
Reaction score
7
A motor drives a pendulum at its natural frequency and keeps it swinging at a constant rate. If this motor uses a longer pendulum, does a frequency need to be increased or decreased?

I'm assuming that the question is asking whether or not the frequency that the motor drives a pendulum needs to be increased to maintain the same swing rate. I don't know if they're actually asking for something else and I can't see it.

Frequency seems to be inversely proportional to length. So it seems that as length increases frequency will decrease so therefore to maintain the same frequency as the original length the motor will have to increase the frequency. But that is not the answer that is given for the question.

The answer states that increasing the length of the pendulum necessitates decreasing the frequency of the motor.

What am I missing here? The given answer seems wrong
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perseverence said:
What am I missing here?
Presumably what you are missing is the interpretation of the poorly worded problem statement that implies that the motor is to use the natural frequency of the new length, not force the old frequency onto the new length. That's what "natural frequency" implies but it should have been stated more clearly.
 
Holy cow! Thank you so much for the explanation. I was completely flummoxed there for a second. The world makes sense again. Thank you thank you thank you thank you!
 
Perseverence said:
The world makes sense again.
Oh, give it time. That illusion never lasts :smile:
 
phinds said:
Oh, give it time. That illusion never lasts :smile:
:confused: oh wow. So true. And completely flummoxed by a whole new question. I keep working at becoming one with the love of physics, but it's just not happening. The whole process is so painfully frustrating.

Thank goodness for physics forum to keep us from completely walking over the edge into the abyss of unrelenting confusion
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top