Pendulum on Pendulum, velocity in non inertial frame

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on deriving the Lagrangian and equations of motion for a double pendulum system consisting of two equal mass particles suspended by massless rods. The Lagrangian is established as L = 1/2 m l^2 a'^2 - mgl (1 - cos(a)), leading to the equation of motion 0 = a'' - g/l sin(a) for small angles. The user explores two approaches to incorporate the second pendulum's motion, ultimately seeking a method to express the velocity of the second mass in a non-inertial frame. The discussion concludes with the user identifying their errors and planning to share the solution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with the concepts of kinetic and potential energy
  • Knowledge of differential equations
  • Basic principles of non-inertial reference frames
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Lagrangian for multi-body systems
  • Learn about the effects of non-inertial frames on motion equations
  • Explore the linearization of nonlinear differential equations
  • Investigate the dynamics of coupled oscillators
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on classical mechanics, dynamic systems, and Lagrangian dynamics. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of complex pendulum systems and their motion equations.

sede
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A double pendulum consists of two particles of equal mass m suspended
by massless rods of equal length l. Assuming that all
motion is in a vertical plane:
1. Find the Lagrangian of this system.
2. then find the equations of motion and,
3. linearize these equations, assuming small motion.


a = angle between rod1 and vertical
b = angle between rod2 and vertical
l = length of each rod
m = mass of the point masses
g = acceleration due to gravity
v = velocity of the point mass


Homework Equations



Lagragian
L = T - V

Lagrange Equation
d/dt(∂L/∂n1) - ∂L/∂n1 = 0 for n=1 through number of variables



The Attempt at a Solution



I started by looking at an easier example, a single pendulum with a mass less rod and point mass on the end. I used the same approach to find the lagragian and eqn of motion for the first rod as follows:


T = kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2
v can be expressed in terms of a.
v = angular velocity * radius
v = l * a' <- ' denoting derived wrt to t

so T = 1/2 m (l*a')^2

V (potential) is described as mg*height above the lowest possible height so:

mg * (l - cos a)

which gives the Lagrangian
L = 1/2 m l^2 a'^2 - mgl (1 - cos(a))

Using the Lagrangian equation:
d/dt(∂L/∂a') - ∂L/∂a = 0

d/dt(∂L/∂a') = l^2 m a''
and
∂L/∂a = mgl sin(a)

which solves to 0 = a'' - g/l sin(a)

assuming small motion, sin(a) is approx equal to a so

0 = a'' - g/l a

Which seems to be fine for a single pendulum. The tricky bit comes with adding the second onto the end of the first. The way I think of it either I can:

1) Treat the second as if it were the first and ignore that it takes place inside a non inertial frame

This gives me a second equation that looks like: 0 = b'' - g/l b


2) When calculating the Lagrangian add the T and V terms of the first rod to the second to try and take the non inertial frame into account:

This evaluates to the same as above: 0 = b'' - g/l b , as the extra terms are removed when passed through the Lagrangian equation.

Both of these evaluate to equations that do not include a so i don't think they are right.

3) When calculating the kinetic energy, instead of simply using v = a' l, somehow describe the velocity in terms of the entire frame. I feel this would be the correct way to do it but is where I get stuck as I don't know how to go about it.

so T = 1/2 m (velocity relative to inertial frame)
V = mg (2l - lcos(a) - lcos(b))

So in summary how can I represent the actual velocity of the second point mass on the end of the second rod? I think that once I have that I should be able to find the eqn of motion and linearize it. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've found the places where I have gone wrong in this problem and what I needed to do. I'll post the solution for reference soon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K