Swinging periods of physical and simple pendelums

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nikitin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the misunderstanding of the dynamics of a physical pendulum compared to a simple pendulum. It emphasizes that one cannot ignore moment of inertia and torque when analyzing the motion of a physical pendulum, as its motion is curvilinear and rotational rather than linear. The correct approach requires incorporating the radius of gyration about the pivot, rather than just the distance to the center of mass. The original reasoning incorrectly simplifies the problem by treating it like a simple pendulum, leading to potential errors in deriving the angular frequency. The conversation concludes with a reminder to search for "radius of gyration" for further clarification.
Nikitin
Messages
734
Reaction score
27
Hey! Where is the error in my reasoning?:

The acceleration of the centre of mass in a swinging physical pendulum in simple harmonic motion is given by:

##M \ddot{\vec{r_{cm}}} = \sum m_j \ddot{\vec{r_j}} = \vec{g} M##

If ##x## is the coordinate distance measured along the swinging-arc of the CM, ##\theta## is the angular displacement from the vertical line thru ##x=0## and ##R## is the distance from the pivot and to the CM, and if we assume the angular amplitude is small:

##\ddot{x_{cm}} \approx -g \theta_{cm} = -\frac{x_{cm}}{R} g##

Thus the period the CM is swinging with is identical to that of a simple pendulum.

Why is this wrong? The acceleration of the centre of mass in a physical pendulum has the same form as that of the ball in the simple pendulum, so why can't I just ignore moment of inertia, torque and all that and just set up a normal DE?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
One cannot "ignore" Moment of Inertia and Torque in the motion of any pendulum of this type on a simple reason that its motion (including the motion of the CM) is not linear, but curvilinear; in this case - rotational.
Thus, the original equation MUST HAVE moment of inertia, instead of just mass multiplied by the derivative of angular coordinate, instead of the linear one, on one side, and the Torque of the Gravitational Force, instead of just the Force itself, on the other side.
 
You can "ignore" the rotary inertia it in a sense, except the correct "length" parameter is the radius of gyration of the pendulum about the pivot, not the distance to its center of mass. Of course for a point mass, the two lengths are the same.
 
What is the radius of gyratation? I assume it can be found by comparing the formulas for the angular frequency of physical and simple pendulums?

Anyway, is there nothing incorrect about the logic in the OP? Because if I use that, I get the same angular frequency expression as for simple pendulums...
 
Nikitin said:
What is the radius of gyratation?
Google is your friend, but search for gyration, not gyratation. :smile:
 
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