Solving Coupled EDOs in Lagrangian Mechanics: Is it Feasible?

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
I must solve the following two coupled EDOs in the context of a Lagrangian mechanics problem (a rigid pendulum of length l attached to a mass sliding w/o friction on the x axis). The problem statement does not mention that we can make small angle approximation. It says "find the equations of motion and solve them for the following initial conditions:...". Is this feasable?

(m_1+m_2)\ddot{x}+m_2l\ddot{\theta}\cos(\theta)-m_2l\dot{\theta}^2\sin(\theta)=0

l\ddot{\theta}+\ddot{x}\cos(\theta)+g\sin(\theta)=0

They can be uncoupled but there remains a second order non-linear ODE to solve.

Is this doable analytically?

And an annexed question (perhaps this one is more of a physical nature): why can we say that \dot{\theta}\approx 0 in the small angle approximation? The angle can be small and nevertheless vary furiously fast. What indicates that if theta is small, the so is its derivative?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Same question but with

\ddot{y}+ay+b\cos(y)=0

Solvable? (a,b are constants)
 
The one in the second post is doable:

t+C_{2}=\int \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2C_{1}-ay^{2}-2b\sin y}}

It remains to compute the integral.

Mathematica returns

\int \frac{dy}{\sqrt{2C_{1}-ay^{2}-2b\sin y}} =-\frac{2}{\sqrt{2C_{1}-ay^{2}-2b\sin y}} F\left[\frac{1}{4}\left(\pi -2y\right), \frac{4b}{-2C_{1}+ay^2 +2b}\right]\sqrt{\frac{2C_{1}-ay^{2}-2b\sin y}{2C_{1}-ay^{2}-2b}}

Daniel.
 
Last edited:
So how do you inverse the function t?
 
By an appropriate use of Jacobi's elliptic functions. In this case i think sine amplitudinis.

Daniel.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top