Swinging periods of physical and simple pendelums

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nikitin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the swinging periods of physical and simple pendulums, focusing on the reasoning behind the equations governing their motion, particularly the role of moment of inertia and torque in the dynamics of a physical pendulum compared to a simple pendulum.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions their reasoning regarding the acceleration of the center of mass in a physical pendulum, suggesting it resembles that of a simple pendulum and wonders why moment of inertia and torque can be ignored.
  • Another participant argues that moment of inertia and torque cannot be ignored because the motion is curvilinear and rotational, necessitating their inclusion in the equations of motion.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that while rotary inertia can be overlooked in some contexts, the correct length parameter should be the radius of gyration about the pivot, rather than the distance to the center of mass.
  • A participant inquires about the definition of the radius of gyration and proposes that it might be determined by comparing the angular frequency formulas of physical and simple pendulums.
  • Another participant humorously responds to the inquiry about the radius of gyration by suggesting that a search engine could provide the answer, correcting the spelling of "gyratation" to "gyration."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of moment of inertia and torque in the motion of pendulums, indicating a lack of consensus on the correctness of the original reasoning presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully resolved the implications of using the radius of gyration versus the distance to the center of mass, and there are unresolved questions regarding the logic of the original post.

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:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
26K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
1K