Possible to derive pendulum velocity in a dynamic approach?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the derivation of pendulum velocity using a dynamic approach rather than conservation of energy. It begins with the established energy equation and seeks to find an alternative method by integrating tangential acceleration over time. The symmetry of the pendulum motion is highlighted, allowing for the assertion that velocity is equal for angles θ and -θ. Through differentiation and rearranging, a relationship between angular velocity and gravitational force is established, leading to an integral that confirms the energy conservation result. Ultimately, the dynamic approach yields the same expression for velocity as the conservation of energy method, demonstrating its validity.
greypilgrim
Messages
579
Reaction score
44
Hi,

Using conservation of energy $$m\cdot\ g\cdot\left(h_0-h\right)=\frac{1}{2}m\cdot\ v^2$$ it's easy to find the exact velocity of a pendulum $$v\left(h\right)=\sqrt{2g\cdot\left(h_0-h\right)}$$
at height ##h## above the minimum when it was let go from the inital height ##h_0##. Is it possible to derive this result from a dynamic point of view, i.e. looking at the forces at every height and integrate?

I know there is no elementary solution to the differential equation of the pendulum for angles beyond the small-angle approximation, but the simplicity of above expression for ##v\left(h\right)## might suggest that there's a way around this if one's only interested in the velocity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gave it a shot..
So we're looking to integrate the tangential acceleration over time in order to estimate the speed of the mass. Given the symmetry of the problem, we know that the magnitude of the velocity will be equal for angles ##\theta## and ##-\theta##, i.e. ##v(\theta)=v(-\theta)##, with ##\theta = 0## corresponding to the situation where the gravitational force and the string are in line with each other. Given this symmetry we can then assert that $$v(t) = \int_0^t dt g sin\theta(t) = \int_0^{\theta} d\theta' g \frac{sin\theta'}{\dot{\theta}'}.$$
We also know that the velocity of the mass at any time is in fact ##v(t) = l\dot{\theta}##, where ##l## is the length of the string. This gives us the following relation:$$\int_0^{\theta} d\theta' g \frac{sin\theta'}{\dot{\theta}'} = l\dot{\theta}.$$ If we now differentiate both sides with respect to ##\theta##, we find that $$g\frac{sin\theta}{\dot{\theta}} = l\frac{d\dot{\theta}}{d\theta}.$$ Rearranging this expression in order to separate dynamical variables, we see that $$l^2\dot{\theta}d\dot{\theta} = gl sin\theta d\theta.$$
Given that coordinates and velocities are independent dynamical variables, we can integrate both sides: $$l^2\int_0^{\dot{\theta}}\dot{\theta}'d\dot{\theta}' = gl\int_{\theta_0}^{\theta}d\theta' sin\theta' ,$$ where we've assumed an initial velocity of 0. Thus, we find that $$l^2\dot{\theta}^2 = 2gl(cos\theta_0 - cos\theta)$$ which is identical to the expression you obtain from energy conservation.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top