Physical pendulum with no fixed pole

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a physical pendulum consisting of a sleeve and a rod, focusing on the conservation of momentum and energy. Participants explore the conditions under which linear and angular momentum are conserved, noting that external forces prevent these quantities from being constant. The maximum angular amplitude and sleeve speed are analyzed, with the consensus that the sleeve does not achieve maximum speed when the rod is at its maximum angle. Instead, the sleeve's speed is influenced by the rod's motion as it swings back down, necessitating a careful examination of the system's momentum in different reference frames. Ultimately, the challenge lies in accurately applying conservation laws to determine the maximum sleeve velocity and angular amplitude.
  • #51
I don't think so. The KE of any rigid body can be expressed as the sum of the KE due to motion of the CM and the KE of rotation about the CM.

KE = (1/2)mVCM2+ (1/2)Icmω2.

You can use this for the rod.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
@TSny Ok, I'd want to express v_cm with respect to ω, v_cm= ωR, but that ω is the one that describes the rotation around the pivot, while the ω^2 in the rotational energy is referred to the cm (otherwise It wouldn't make sense to calculate I respect to CM). I realize now that probably I didn't fully understand your earlier comment " angular speed. There is no need to say "with respect to the pole". "..

Probably I missed something with angular kinematics. I mean, let's suppose I have a point rotating on a circumference with constant speed, in this case ω = v/R with respect to the center and every arc (that correspond to some time) cirresponds to the same angle, but what if choose as angular reference another , outer, point? In this case a defined piece of circumference doesn't always correspond to the same angle (when the arc is nearer to the point the angle is bigger)... Probably I'm completely wrong, I need your explanation! :(
 
  • #53
You don't need to specify a reference point for defining ω. The angle Δθ through which an object rotates during a time Δt is defined independent of a point of reference and independent of inertial frame of reference. (Of course if you allow rotating reference frames, Δθ could depend on the frame of reference. But, we are not using rotating frames here.) So, all inertial frames agree on ω for the rod and, also, there is no need to specify an origin for defining ω.

The best way to determine vcm is to use the expressions for vx and vy. You should find ultimately that you can express the KE of the rod due to the motion of the CM of the rod in terms of just U and θ. Likewise, for the rotational KE of the rod relative to the CM of the rod. So, the total KE of the system can be expressed in terms of just U and θ.

If you just want to show that U is maximum at θ = 0, you don't need to go through all of this. |U| will be a maximum at θ = 0 if you can show that |U| never decreases as |θ| decreases. If at some θ, |U| were to decrease as |θ| decreased, what would happen to |vx|, |ω|, and |vy| according to equations 1, 2 and 3, respectively? I'm using absolute values here since we are only interested in magnitudes.
 
  • #54
Ahhh ok, @TSny I hope I got it:
|vx| proportional to U, proportional to ω cos θ
|U| proportional to ω cos θ
|vy| proportional to ω sin θ

when θ decreases, cos θ increases, sin θ decreases
if |U| decreases it must be that |ω| decreases
|vx| increases (because it is proportional to U
|vy| decreases (because |ω| decreases and sin θ decreases).

I guess that you'd like me to find a contradiction, but I still can't see it because all of these things could happen at certain moments during the swing-down. Isn't it?
 
  • #55
bznm said:
when θ decreases, cos θ increases
OK
sin θ decreases
OK
if |U| decreases it must be that |ω| decreases
OK
|vx| increases (because it is proportional to U
Check this result for |vx|. We are only looking at absolute values.
|vy| decreases (because |ω| decreases and sin θ decreases)
OK
 
  • #56
TSny said:
Check this result for |vx|. We are only looking at absolute values.
vx = -U/2, |vx| proportional to |U|.. if |U| decreases |vx| decreases... I can't see the error :(
 
  • #57
bznm said:
vx = -U/2, |vx| proportional to |U|.. if |U| decreases |vx| decreases... I can't see the error :(
I thought you said |vx| increases.
 
  • Like
Likes bznm
  • #58
TSny said:
I thought you said |vx| increases.
Oh my gosh, this problem is driving me crazy. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding :/
What should I do now? How can I conclude that |U| can't decrease?

Thanks again for your precious help!
 
  • #59
bznm said:
Oh my gosh, this problem is driving me crazy. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding :/
What should I do now? How can I conclude that |U| can't decrease?
Well, based on what you have found, if there is some place in the motion where |U| decreases when |θ| decreases, all of the other quantities |vx|, |vy|, and |ω| would also decrease when |θ| decreased. Then what would happen to the total KE of the system as |θ| decreased?
 
  • Like
Likes bznm
  • #60
TSny said:
Well, based on what you have found, if there is some place in the motion where |U| decreases when |θ| decreases, all of the other quantities |vx|, |vy|, and |ω| would also decrease when |θ| decreased. Then what would happen to the total KE of the system as |θ| decreased?
The conclusion was clear, once I corrected the typo and reviewed what I wrote.
If all that velocities decrease, then I can conclude that total KE decreases, but this is not possibile because also potential energy is decreasing and there are no dissipative forces. OK, we finally found out that max sleeve speed is when the rod comes back in the horizontal position. Could you now guide me toward the final answer (i.e. max sleeve speed in original frame)?
 
  • #61
Can you find the speed, w, of the zero-momentum frame relative to the original frame?
 
  • #62
TSny said:
Can you find the speed, w, of the zero-momentum frame relative to the original frame?
could you point out what was conceptually wrong in message #42 ?
 
  • #63
bznm said:
Furthermore, when θ max, rod-and-sleeve are moving with the same velocity.

This means that if θ max
- in the zero momentum frame the horizontal momentum is 3M*(vx + w) = 0 i.e. w=-vx
OK, here vx is the velocity of the system at θmax in the original frame.
- In the original frame I have that px at start = px at θ max.
That is 2M ω L = 3M vx, so vx=2/3 ω L for θ max.
You didn't express the distance from the pivot to the CM of the rod correctly.

You are getting a negative value for w. It seems more natural to me to let w be the positive velocity that the zero-momentum frame is moving relative to the original frame. Then in the zero momentum frame you would have the equation 3m*(vx - w) = 0 and you will end up with a positive value of w. But that's just a matter of personal choice.
 
  • #64
TSny said:
OK, here vx is the velocity of the system at θmax in the original frame.

You didn't express the distance from the pivot to the CM of the rod correctly.

You are getting a negative value for w. It seems more natural to me to let w be the positive velocity that the zero-momentum frame is moving relative to the original frame. Then in the zero momentum frame you would have the equation 3m*(vx - w) = 0 and you will end up with a positive value of w. But that's just a matter of personal choice.
1) 3m*(vx - w) = 0 hence w=vx
2) In the original frame I have that px at start = px at θ max.
That is 2M ω R = 3M vx, so vx=2/3 ω R for θ max.
I conclude that w is 2/3 ω0 R.
Umax = -2/3 ωθ=0 R cosθ + w = -2/3 ωθ=0 R cosθ + 2/3 ω0 R
where R is the distance pivot-center of mass.. it should be L/3.

Is it correct?
 
  • #65
bznm said:
1) 3m*(vx - w) = 0 hence w=vx
OK
2) In the original frame I have that px at start = px at θ max.
That is 2M ω R = 3M vx, so vx=2/3 ω R for θ max.
OK
I conclude that w is 2/3 ω0 R.
OK
Umax = -2/3 ωθ=0 R cosθ + w = -2/3 ωθ=0 R cosθ + 2/3 ω0 R
Since you are looking at the time when θ = 0, you can simplify cosθ. Can you express ωθ=0 in terms of ω0?
where R is the distance pivot-center of mass.. it should be L/3.
Did you mean to say R = L/2?
 
  • #66
TSny said:
OK
OK
OK

Since you are looking at the time when θ = 0, you can simplify cosθ. Can you express ωθ=0 in terms of ω0?
Should I use the fact delta Krodrotational = - (Ksleeve + Krodtranslational)?
Did you mean to say R = L/2?
uhm but the rigid body rod-and-sleeve has mass 3M, with M in the pivot and 2M distributed in the L rod..
so the center of mass should be nearer to the pivot than L/2..
L/2 is only-rod center of mass, isn't it?
 
  • #67
ω0 is the initial counterclockwise angular speed of the rod (in both frames).
ωθ=0 is the angular speed when the rod returns to vertical (moving clockwise).
Form the symmetry of the motion in the zero-momentum frame, it should be easy to see how ωθ=0 is related to ω0.
 
  • #68
TSny said:
ω0 is the initial counterclockwise angular speed of the rod (in both frames).
ωθ=0 is the angular speed when the rod returns to vertical (moving clockwise).
Form the symmetry of the motion in the zero-momentum frame, it should be easy to see how ωθ=0 is related to ω0.
i watched again the animation... I'd say that ωθ=0 is opposite to ω0, but I think this is wrong because at start only the rod is moving, while when theta is 0 again also the sleeve is moving!
 
  • #69
The animation is an approximation to the motion in the zero momentum frame. In this frame, the sleeve is moving except when the rod is at |θ|max.
 
  • #70
bznm said:
i watched again the animation... I'd say that ωθ=0 is opposite to ω0
Yes, that's right for the zero-momentum frame.
 
  • #71
TSny said:
Yes, that's right for the zero-momentum frame.
didn't we say "all inertial frames agree on ω for the rod"?
 
  • #72
bznm said:
didn't we say "all inertial frames agree on ω for the rod"?
Yes, that's right. Do you see this as a problem?
 
  • Like
Likes bznm
  • #73
TSny said:
I'd say that ωθ=0 is opposite to ω0
Yes, that's right *for the zero-momentum frame*.
*all inertial frames agree* on ω for the rod

so, ωθ=0 is opposite to ω0 in every inertial frame and
Umax = -2/3 ωθ=0 R cosθ + w = -2/3 ωθ=0 R + 2/3 ω0 R=4/3 ω0 R..
What about it?

[I was reading something about angular velocity: the property "it doesn't depend on an origin" is true for the rigid body (reference), but for a particle I need an origin.. isn't it?]
 
Last edited:
  • #74
I tried to recap everything and I think I spotted some mistakes.. could you please read it and tell me if it sounds good, @TSny ? Please!

##d_{cm}=\frac{\frac{L}{2}\cdot2M +0 \cdot M}{3M}=\frac{L}{3} ##

##v_{cm}= \omega d_{cm}##

At start the horizontal linear momentum is ##3Mv_{cm_{0}}##, while at ##\theta_{max}## rod-and-sleeve is just translating at some velocity V, so the hor. linear momentum is ##3MV##.

As the h. linear momentum conserves itself (there are no horizontal forces), it must be ##V=v_{cm_{0}} = \omega_{0}\frac{L}{3}##.

There are no dissipative forces, so U + K conserves.

At first (##\theta=0##), instead the motion is entirely rotational: ##E_{\theta=0}=\frac{1}{2}I\omega_0^2##, where I is the moment of inertia, calculated as ##I=\frac{1}{3}(2M)L^2##.

At ##\theta_{max}##, the motion is entirely translational, so ##E_{\theta_{max}}## is ##\frac{1}{2}(3M) V^2+ L(2M)g(1-\cos(\theta_{max}))## (where the second term is the expression for the potential energy.

From ##E_{\theta_{max}}=E_{\theta=0}## I get ##\cos(\theta_{max})=1-\frac{5L\omega_0^2}{12g}##.

Then, using the following notation (measured in the zero-momentum frame):

U is the instantaneous velocity of the sleeve. Positive toward the right.

vx is the x-component of the center of mass of the rod. Positive x is to the right.

vy is the y-component of the center of mass of the rod. Positive y is upward.

θ is the angular displacement of rod from horizontal. Counterclockwise is positive.

R is the distance pivot-center of mass (##d_{cm}##)

ω is the angular velocity of the rod. Counterclockwise is positive.

vx=U+ωRcosθ

In the zero-momentum frame MU+2Mvx is constantly 0.
M(U)+2M(U+ωRcosθ)=0 hence ##U = -2/3 ω R \cos(θ)##.

While the rod is swinging up it loses horizontal momentum, so also the sleeve is reducing its horizontal momentum (talking about abs values). While the rod swings down, instead, it gains horizontal momentum, and so does the sleeve. What we want to verify is that effectively the sleeve has its maximum KE at ##\theta=0## (we want to show that |U| never decreases as |θ| decreases).

Let's recap:

vx = -U/2 (from conservation of momentum)

##U = -\frac{2}{3}ωRcosθ##

vy = ωRsinθ

If |U| were to decrease as |θ| decreased, |vx| decreases, |ω| decreases, |vy| decreases.. that means that if |U| decreases when |θ| decreases, then KE of the system decreases, but this is not possible because also potential energy is decreasing and there are no dissipative forces. OK, we finally found out that max sleeve speed is when the rod comes back in the vertical position.

If θ max, with vx the velocity in the original frame:

- in the zero momentum frame the horizontal momentum is 3M*(vx - w) = 0 i.e. w=vx (w is the transformation factor between the frames).
I conclude that w is V.

##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} R cosθ + w##

Due to the symmetry of motion in the zero-momentum frame ##ω_{θ=0}## is opposite to ω0 in every inertial frame and

##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} R cosθ + w = -2/3 ω_{0} R + ω_0 R=1/3 ω_0 R##
 
  • #75
bznm said:
so, ωθ=0 is opposite to ω0 in every inertial frame and
Umax = -2/3 ωθ=0 R cosθ + w = -2/3 ωθ=0 R + 2/3 ω0 R=4/3 ω0 R..
What about it?
I think that's correct. Most people would probably prefer to see the answer in terms of the length of the rod, L, instead of R.

[I was reading something about angular velocity: the property "it doesn't depend on an origin" is true for the rigid body (reference), but for a particle I need an origin.. isn't it?]
Yes, that's right.
 
  • #76
bznm said:
I tried to recap everything and I think I spotted some mistakes.. could you please read it and tell me if it sounds good, @TSny ? Please!

##d_{cm}=\frac{\frac{L}{2}\cdot2M +0 \cdot M}{3M}=\frac{L}{3} ##

##v_{cm}= \omega d_{cm}##

At start the horizontal linear momentum is ##3Mv_{cm_{0}}##, while at ##\theta_{max}## rod-and-sleeve is just translating at some velocity V, so the hor. linear momentum is ##3MV##.
OK. For me, it's easier to get the initial horizontal momentum of the system (in the original frame) by just calculating the momentum of the rod since the sleeve is at rest. No need to worry about the location of the CM of the entire system.

As the h. linear momentum conserves itself (there are no horizontal forces), it must be ##V=v_{cm_{0}} = \omega_{0}\frac{L}{3}##.

There are no dissipative forces, so U + K conserves.

At first (##\theta=0##), instead the motion is entirely rotational: ##E_{\theta=0}=\frac{1}{2}I\omega_0^2##, where I is the moment of inertia, calculated as ##I=\frac{1}{3}(2M)L^2##.

At ##\theta_{max}##, the motion is entirely translational, so ##E_{\theta_{max}}## is ##\frac{1}{2}(3M) V^2+ L(2M)g(1-\cos(\theta_{max}))## (where the second term is the expression for the potential energy.
The potential energy expression is not quite correct. The potential energy is determined by the location of the CM of the rod.

From ##E_{\theta_{max}}=E_{\theta=0}## I get ##\cos(\theta_{max})=1-\frac{5L\omega_0^2}{12g}##
Once the PE is corrected, you will get a different answer. But your method is correct.

Let's recap:

vx = -U/2 (from conservation of momentum)

##U = -\frac{2}{3}ωRcosθ##

vy = ωRsinθ

If |U| were to decrease as |θ| decreased, |vx| decreases, |ω| decreases, |vy| decreases.. that means that if |U| decreases when |θ| decreases, then KE of the system decreases, but this is not possible because also potential energy is decreasing and there are no dissipative forces. OK, we finally found out that max sleeve speed is when the rod comes back in the vertical position.
OK

If θ max, with vx the velocity in the original frame:

- in the zero momentum frame the horizontal momentum is 3M*(vx - w) = 0 i.e. w=vx (w is the transformation factor between the frames).
I conclude that w is V.
OK

##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} R cosθ + w##

Due to the symmetry of motion in the zero-momentum frame ##ω_{θ=0}## is opposite to ω0 in every inertial frame and

##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} R cosθ + w = -2/3 ω_{0} R + ω_0 R=1/3 ω_0 R##
Does ##ω_{θ=0} = ω_{0}## or does ##ω_{θ=0} = -ω_{0}##?

Finally, I thought you found earlier that ## w = (2/3) ω_0 R = (1/3) ω_0 L##.
 
  • Like
Likes bznm
  • #77
I originally wrote
bznm said:
In the original frame I have that px at start = px at θ max.
That is 2M ω R = 3M vx, so vx=2/3 ω R for θ max.
I conclude that w is 2/3 ω0 R.
but then I thought that I was wrong with the calculation of px at start. In fact if I consider the system, whose center of mass is located at R=L/3, then I have to calculate px with *3*M ω R = 3M vx, so vx=ω R=ω0 * L/3=w.
Now I see that with R you always considered L/2, while I thought at L/3.. we also considered two different centers of mass.. do the other things I wrote work even with this misunderstanding? :(
I corrected the calculation of Umax:
##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} R cosθ + w = 2/3 ω_{0} R + ω_0 R=ω_0 R##

While for the problem regarding the PE, I suppose that's enough to replace L with R..
 
  • #78
In post #41 you wrote ##v_x = U + \omega R \cos \theta## which is true for ##R = L/2##. So I always thought R stood for L/2.
Let's agree to never use the symbol R again. :smile: We'll either write L/2 or L/3 explicitly.

Anyway, I do agree that w = ##\omega_0 L/3##. Would you mind rewriting your final calculation for Umax?

[EDIT: For the PE, the CM of the rod moves in an arc of radius L/2, not L.]
 
Last edited:
  • #79
@TSny:
I corrected the calculation of Umax:
##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} L/2 cosθ + w =1/3 ω_{0} L + ω_0 L/3=2/3 L ω_0##

About PE:
At first (##\theta=0##), instead the motion is entirely rotational: ##E_{\theta=0}=\frac{1}{2}I\omega_0^2##, where I is the moment of inertia, calculated as ##I=\frac{1}{3}(2M)L^2##.

At ##\theta_{max}##, the motion is entirely translational, so ##E_{\theta_{max}}## is ##\frac{1}{2}(3M) V^2+ L/2 (2M)g(1-\cos(\theta_{max}))## (where the second term is the expression for the potential energy.

From ##E_{\theta_{max}}=E_{\theta=0}## I get ##\cos(\theta_{max})=1-\frac{L\omega_0^2}{6g}##.

What about it now?
 
  • #80
bznm said:
##U_{max} = -2/3 ω_{θ=0} L/2 cosθ + w =1/3 ω_{0} L + ω_0 L/3=2/3 L ω_0##

About PE:
At first (##\theta=0##), instead the motion is entirely rotational: ##E_{\theta=0}=\frac{1}{2}I\omega_0^2##, where I is the moment of inertia, calculated as ##I=\frac{1}{3}(2M)L^2##.

At ##\theta_{max}##, the motion is entirely translational, so ##E_{\theta_{max}}## is ##\frac{1}{2}(3M) V^2+ L/2 (2M)g(1-\cos(\theta_{max}))## (where the second term is the expression for the potential energy.

From ##E_{\theta_{max}}=E_{\theta=0}## I get ##\cos(\theta_{max})=1-\frac{L\omega_0^2}{6g}##.
Looks great! Good work.
 
  • #81
Ohhh, I'm happy!
but I tried writing the conservation of energy, without using special frames, between t=0 and the position in which the rod has come back in vertical position:
##1/2 I \omega_0^2 = 1/2 I \omega_{\theta=0}^2 +1/2 M U^2+1/2 (2M) v_{cm}^2##/
but if ##\omega_0=-\omega_{\theta=0}## then there's something wrong... what am I missing? :/

Please @TSny, keep in mind that this problem is very difficult with respect to my course! :(
 
  • #82
bznm said:
Ohhh, I'm happy!
Good!
but I tried writing the conservation of energy, without using special frames, between t=0 and the position in which the rod has come back in vertical position:
##1/2 I \omega_0^2 = 1/2 I \omega_{\theta=0}^2 +1/2 M U^2+1/2 (2M) v_{cm}^2##/
but if ##\omega_0=-\omega_{\theta=0}## then there's something wrong... what am I missing? :/
Does the symbol ##I## on the left side stand for the same quantity as the symbol ##I## on the right side? On the left side, ##I## is about what point? On the right, ##I## is about what point?
 
  • #83
TSny said:
Good!

Does the symbol ##I## on the left side stand for the same quantity as the symbol ##I## on the right side? On the left side, ##I## is about what point? On the right, ##I## is about what point?
Uhmm, I think that the I that appears in rotational energy depends on axis of rotation.. isn't it?
On my notes I read:
## KE = \sum 1/2m_i v_i^2 = \sum 1/2 m_i r_i^2 \omega^2 = 1/2 (\sum m_i r_i^2) \omega^2= 1/2 I \omega^2##
 
  • #84
At the initial instant, the rod may be considered as rotating about the top end because the top end is instantaneously at rest. So, the KE of the rod may be written simply as ##(1/2)I_\textrm{ end}ω^2##. But when the rod returns to vertical, the top end of the rod is not instantaneously at rest. Now you are expressing the KE of the rod as ##(1/2)(2M)v_\textrm{cm}^2 + (1/2)I_\textrm{cm}ω^2##.
 
  • #85
TSny said:
At the initial instant, the rod may be considered as rotating about the top end because the top end is instantaneously at rest. So, the KE of the rod may be written simply as ##(1/2)I_\textrm{ end}ω^2##. But when the rod returns to vertical, the top end of the rod is not instantaneously at rest. Now you are expressing the KE of the rod as ##(1/2)(2M)v_\textrm{cm}^2 + (1/2)I_\textrm{cm}ω^2##.
OOk, thanks.. you're right as always! :smile:
I also tried writing the momentum in the general frame:
M(U)+2M(U+ω L/2 cosθ)=2M ω0 L/2 (px at start)
so calculating for θ=0 I get
M(U)+2M(U-ω0 L/2 cosθ)=M ω0 L
U=1/3 (ω0) (L cos (θ)+ L)
... which gives Umax= 2/3 ω0 L that we got also with the use of special frame! :wink:

Could you tell me something more about the concept "due to the symmetry in zero momentum frame, |ω| = |ω0| for theta=0"?
It isn't very natural to me (at start only pendulum is moving, when the rod comes back also the sleeve is moving, why the hell should it come with the same angular velocity? :H), even if I have seen that it just works :woot:
 
  • #86
In the center of mass frame (zero-momentum frame), the motion is symmetric between swinging up and swinging back down. When the rod is vertical and swinging counterclockwise, the sleeve is moving to the left. When the rod reaches max angle, the rod and sleeve momentarily stop. Then, the rod and sleeve have the "reverse" motion as the rod swings back down. When the rod reaches vertical and moving clockwise, it will have the same magnitude of angular velocity as initially and the sleeve will have the same speed as initially.
 
  • #87
TSny said:
In the center of mass frame (zero-momentum frame), the motion is symmetric between swinging up and swinging back down. When the rod is vertical and swinging counterclockwise, the sleeve is moving to the left. When the rod reaches max angle, the rod and sleeve momentarily stop. Then, the rod and sleeve have the "reverse" motion as the rod swings back down. When the rod reaches vertical and moving clockwise, it will have the same magnitude of angular velocity as initially and the sleeve will have the same speed as initially.
Ok, I got it.
Could you check that my last calculation is error free? :smile:
 
  • #88
bznm said:
Could you check that my last calculation is error free? :smile:
It looks very good.
 
Back
Top