MHB Simple pendulum with air resistance

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving mechanics homework related to a simple pendulum affected by air resistance. The user is attempting to derive the equation of motion for small angular displacements and is unsure about incorporating air resistance into their calculations. A participant provides corrections to the user's formulas for acceleration and total force, emphasizing the need to apply Newton's second law correctly. The conversation highlights the importance of approximations in simplifying the equations and clarifies the user's confusion regarding the application of fundamental physics principles. Overall, the exchange aids in refining the user's understanding of the problem.
Carla1985
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
Im getting stuck on a couple of the questions for my mechanics homework. Il put what I've done so far and hopefully someone can check I am doing it right n push me into the right direction for the rest.

"A grandfather clock has a simple pendulum of length L with a bob of mass m. The effect of air resistance is to produce a force on the bob of magnitude 2cm times its speed, where c > 0 is a positive constant.

(i) Show that, provided the angular displacement θ of the pendulum from the downward vertical is small, θ approximately satisfies the equation,

\[
\ddot{\theta}+2c\dot{\theta}+\frac{g}{L}\theta=0
\]

[Hint: Use polar coordinates and Taylor’s theorem as we did in lectures for the case without air resistance.]

(ii) Suppose now that c = $\sqrt{g/L}$. Show that if $\theta(0) = a$ and $\dot{\theta}(0) = 0$, then

$\theta(t) = a(1 + ct)e^{−ct}$

Will the pendulum ever return to the vertical position in this case? Explain
your answer"


so far I have:

The rod has fixed length r=L so
$\vec{r}=L\vec{e}_r$

as r=L is a constant, $\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0$
so acceleration is
$\ddot{r}=(\dot{r}-r\dot{\theta}^2)e_r+(2\dot{r}\dot{\theta}+r\ddot{\theta})e_\theta$

$=-L(\dot{\theta}^2e_r+L\ddot{\theta}e_\theta$

so the total force is
$(mgcos\theta-T)e_r-(mgsin\theta+2cm\dot{x})e_\theta$I've completed a very similar question without air resistance without too much problems but not sure if I've added air resistance in right at all. Hope it at least makes some sense :/

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Carla1985 said:
so far I have:

The rod has fixed length r=L so
$\vec{r}=L\vec{e}_r$

as r=L is a constant, $\dot{r}=\ddot{r}=0$
so acceleration is
$\ddot{r}=(\dot{r}-r\dot{\theta}^2)e_r+(2\dot{r}\dot{\theta}+r\ddot{\theta})e_\theta$

$=-L(\dot{\theta}^2e_r+L\ddot{\theta}e_\theta$

so the total force is
$(mgcos\theta-T)e_r-(mgsin\theta+2cm\dot{x})e_\theta$I've completed a very similar question without air resistance without too much problems but not sure if I've added air resistance in right at all. Hope it at least makes some sense :/

Thanks

Hi Carla1985! :)

Actually, if I'm nitpicking a bit, your formula for acceleration should be:
$$\ddot{\mathbf{\vec r}}=(\ddot{r}-r\dot{\theta}^2)\mathbf{\vec e_r} + (2\dot{r}\dot{\theta}+r\ddot{\theta})\mathbf{\vec e_\theta} = -L\dot{\theta}^2\mathbf{\vec e_r} + L\ddot{\theta}\mathbf{\vec e_\theta}$$
And your total force should be:
$$\mathbf{\vec F} = (mg\cos\theta-T)\mathbf{\vec e_r}-(mg\sin\theta+2cm \cdot L\dot{\theta})\mathbf{\vec e_\theta}$$

Since each of the components of $\mathbf{\vec F}$ must be equal to each of the components of $m\ddot{\mathbf{\vec r}}$ (Newton's 3rd law), you get:
$$\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
mg\cos\theta-T &=& -mL\dot{\theta}^2\\
mg\sin\theta+2cm \cdot L\dot{\theta} &=& mL\ddot{\theta}
\end{array}\right.$$
Furthermore, you can use the approximation $\sin \theta \approx \theta$.So where are you stuck?
 
Last edited:
Actually your few alterations put me back on track, surprising how silly mistakes can confuse the whole thing. Thank you very much :D
 
I like Serena said:
Since each of the components of $\mathbf{\vec F}$ must be equal to each of the components of $m\ddot{\mathbf{\vec r}}$ (Newton's 3rd law), ...

Did you mean Newton's 2nd Law?
 
Ackbach said:
Did you mean Newton's 2nd Law?

Yep.
Thanks for spotting that.
 
Thread 'Erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
7K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K