Small angle approximation for (dθ/dt)^2=0

AI Thread Summary
A user is seeking a textbook to reference for a project involving Taylor series expansions, specifically in the context of an inverted pendulum on a cart. They express confusion about the linearization process and the application of Taylor series, particularly how derivatives are used in approximations. Other participants suggest that any entry-level physics textbook should cover Taylor series and provide guidance on its application for small angles. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the first-order Taylor series expansion around equilibrium points and clarifies the definitions used in the referenced paper. Overall, the conversation aims to assist the user in grasping the mathematical concepts necessary for their project.
V_Permendur
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, I am looking for a textbook that I can cite as a source for a project, for which I am doing the math on.

I know that for a 22° approximation sinθ=θ and cosθ=1-\frac{θ^{2}}{2}

but for a 5° approximation sinθ=θ but now cosθ=1


and that's all fine and dandy, but I am looking through a paper on an inverted pendulum on a cart, and after solving their system lagrangian, which I have done, when it came down to linearize the final equations, they were saying that the \dot{\theta}2=0

and i believe this comes from the taylor series expansion. Unfortunately I am terrible at taylor series, and I want to know more about this, and what I really need is a textbook that has this information in there, that I can use as a reference source.

if anyone can name a book that will have this information (and hopefully the page that its on as well) if my university library doesn't have it, then hopefully I can find it in some library and if not, hopefully i can download a pdf of it somewhere.

Here is the paper from where I am getting most of this information. It seems to be the most complete. Scroll down to page 12 to see their approximation.
http://web.mit.edu/2.737/www/extra_files/andrew.pdf

thanks guys.

-Robby
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You should find the Taylor Series in any entry-level (college) physics textbook.

I know that for a 22° approximation sinθ=θ and cosθ=θ-θ^2/2

That does not work ...
\theta=22^\circ \text{ is } 11\pi/90\text{rad}=0.38397\text{rad}
\theta -\theta^2/2 = 0.38397
\cos(\theta)=0.92718
... it's actually closer to 1. The approximation works better for \sin(\theta) - but \theta - \frac{1}{6}\theta^3 is better.

For any f(x) where you know its value at some point x=a then the values nearby, that is: x ≈ a, will be close to:
f(a)+\frac{f^\prime}{1!}(x-a)+\frac{f^{\prime\prime}}{2!}(x-a)^2+\frac{f^{\prime\prime\prime}}{3!}(x-a)^3 +\cdots
... the farther you go from f(a) the more terms you need in the approximation.
This series is called "The Taylor Series".

For the par-axial approximation you want to expand the functions around x=a=0
For f(x)=cos(x), f(x=0)=1, f'(x)=-sin(x), f''(x)=-cos(x) so just substitute into the formula for the series.

\cos(\theta) \approx 1 - 0 - \frac{1}{2}\theta^2 - 0 + \cdots and similarly,
\sin(\theta) \approx 0 + \theta - 0 - \frac{1}{6}\theta^3 + \cdots

Notice that the first term in the expansion for each dosn't actually help ... so you use at least the first two terms.
In practice this works for angles quite close to 0, the rule of thumb is "less than 22deg" but that's just a rule of thumb.
If you use the first three terms (say your angles are about 22deg) you get the sort of relationship that puzzled you.

You don't normally need to cite anything for the theory - just state that you are using the Taylor series expansion, and state the "order" of the expansion.
 
Last edited:
Simon Bridge said:
You should find the Taylor Series in any entry-level (college) physics textbook.



That does not work ...
\theta=22^\circ \text{ is } 11\pi/90\text{rad}=0.38397\text{rad}
\theta -\theta^2/2 = 0.38397
\cos(\theta)=0.92718
... it's actually closer to 1. The approximation works better for \sin(\theta) - but \theta - \frac{1}{6}\theta^3 is better.

For any f(x) where you know its value at some point x=a then the values nearby, that is: x ≈ a, will be close to:
f(a)+\frac{f^\prime}{1!}(x-a)+\frac{f^{\prime\prime}}{2!}(x-a)^2+\frac{f^{\prime\prime\prime}}{3!}(x-a)^3 +\cdots
... the farther you go from f(a) the more terms you need in the approximation.
This series is called "The Taylor Series".

For the par-axial approximation you want to expand the functions around x=a=0
For f(x)=cos(x), f(x=0)=1, f'(x)=-sin(x), f''(x)=-cos(x) so just substitute into the formula for the series.

\cos(\theta) \approx 1 - 0 - \frac{1}{2}\theta^2 - 0 + \cdots and similarly,
\sin(\theta) \approx 0 + \theta - 0 - \frac{1}{6}\theta^3 + \cdots

Notice that the first term in the expansion for each dosn't actually help ... so you use at least the first two terms.
In practice this works for angles quite close to 0, the rule of thumb is "less than 22deg" but that's just a rule of thumb.
If you use the first three terms (say your angles are about 22deg) you get the sort of relationship that puzzled you.

You don't normally need to cite anything for the theory - just state that you are using the Taylor series expansion, and state the "order" of the expansion.

lol sorry i just changed it in my post! for 22 degree approx what i meant to say was cosθ=1-\frac{θ^{2}}{2}

the information i really need is how the heck they did the taylor series expansion with that derivative. i have my old math book and i can see how they got the taylor series for sine and cosine, but there's nothing in it similar to what they did in that paper. did you see the link?
 
On p12, eq2.26 is just the 1st order Taylor series expansion about \theta=0.
eq2.28 just applies this definition to the situation of small oscillations about one of the equilibrium points.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about where you get lost.
 
Simon Bridge said:
On p12, eq2.26 is just the 1st order Taylor series expansion about \theta=0.
eq2.28 just applies this definition to the situation of small oscillations about one of the equilibrium points.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific about where you get lost.

yes i probably should have listed the equation numbers.

im confused on 2.25-2.27
 
All right, but in what way?

1st step in scientific method is to identify the problem :)

For instance, perhaps you are confused by the way the epsilon vanishes?
2.25 defines \epsilon = \theta-\theta_0 where \theta_0 is some position of interest... in this case: an equilibrium position. Thus epsilon corresponds to a small angle off equilibrium.

To analyse the system you need to be able to know \sin(\epsilon) and so on.

The first condition considered is when \theta_0=0
So, from 2.25, what is epsilon?

... that help?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top