The principle of reversible Kater's pendulum and why its rod's ends are pointed

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the principles of Kater's pendulum, specifically addressing why the distance between its knife edges is treated as the length of an equivalent simple pendulum, the design of the rod's ends, and the weight of the rod. The distance between the knife edges is derived from the pendulum's moment of inertia and the relationship between the periods of oscillation about each pivot point. The ends of the rod are sharpened to maintain a consistent point of suspension, preventing distortion in its swing. The rod's weight helps mitigate air resistance, similar to how heavier objects experience less drag compared to lighter ones. Overall, the design choices enhance the pendulum's accuracy and efficiency in measuring time periods.
hypernova90
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am not able think of convincing answers to the following questions-
1.Why the distance between knife edges (when the time periods about them is approx same) is considered equal to the length of an equivalent simple pendulum ?? It will be great if you can derive it...
2. Why the ends of the rod of Kater's pendulum are sharpened (pointed) ??
3. Why the rod itself is so heavy ?

I don't have a clue to question 1's answer...:frown:

For question 2, I think it is only so that we can better see when the pendulum passes a certain reference point, thus reducing the error in measurement of time period...but this is not satisfying because a bar pendulum does not have such ends (the rod in bar pendulum is cylindrical with flat ends)...:confused:

For question 3, I think it is to reduce the effect of buoyancy due to air ?? I am not sure...

Any help will be appreciated.:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i would have thought the blades were sharpened so that it could rock back and forth smoothly, so it doesn't waste any energy. i am curious about why the distance between the blades can be treated as the effective length of a simple pendulum though, i have been scouring the net looking for a derivation myself for some work I am doing and i can't find one.
for question three i would imagine that its helpful to have a heavy pendulum so that air resistance is not such a problem.
 
Jeebs ,
I am not talking about the sharpening of the blades of the knife edges, that is done so that the "point" (actually line) of suspension of the rod remains the same, otherwise a blunt end would cause the rod to swing in a slightly 'distorted' fashion as the position of point of suspension itself will not be constant...
I am talking about the 'sharpened' (maybe this word is causing confusion, but i don't have any other word for it) ends of the rod itself . If u see the rod(not the knife edges) in Kater's pendulum, the ends are made like the head of a missile...

And why will air drag decrease with increase in mass of rod ?? I thought resistance due to a fluid depends entirely on volume...is the answer decrease in air resistance OR decrease in buoyancy due to air..? OR are both the same thing...??
 
ohh sorry. Well, the reason that our Kater's pendulum had very thin tips was to allow it to fit through the light gate that measured the period.

what i meant by making it more heavy was, compare the flight of a shuttlecock (badminton) to the flight of a tennis ball, you can belt a shuttlecock as hard as you want but the air resistance effect is still massive, whereas a tennis ball is effected a lot less, and its more down to the different masses of the two objects rather than the shapes of them.

if you still don't know what i mean, imagine your pendulum, and then imagine it completely hollow inside. which one is going to be affected by air resistance more?
 
Last edited:
hypernova90 said:
1.Why the distance between knife edges (when the time periods about them is approx same) is considered equal to the length of an equivalent simple pendulum ?? It will be great if you can derive it...

This result is not obvious.

In general, given a pendulum (with small oscillations) with moment of inertia I about the axis of rotation and d the distance to the centre of mass, recall that the period of oscillation is T = 2\pi\sqrt{I/mgd}. For a simple pendulum, I = md^2, so T = 2\pi\sqrt{d/g}.

Say the mass of Kater's pendulum is m, the distances from the centre of mass to each of the knife edges are a, b, and say the moment of inertia about the centre of mass (along the axis of rotation) is I_0. Then the moments of inertia about the two pivots are I_a = I_0 + ma^2 and I_b = I_0 + mb^2. From above, their periods are T_a = 2\pi\sqrt{(I_0 + ma^2)/mga} and T_b = 2\pi\sqrt{(I_0 + mb^2)/mgb}; setting them equal and solving gives I_0 = mab. In that case, the common period is T = T_a = 2\pi\sqrt{(mab + ma^2)/mga} = 2\pi\sqrt{(a + b)/g}, which is the period of a simple pendulum with length a + b.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top