Two Pendulums connected by a spring

  • Thread starter Thread starter CAF123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of two identical pendulums connected by a spring, focusing on the expressions for total energy, kinetic and potential energy terms, and the implications of small displacements from equilibrium. The participants explore the relationships between the pendulums' positions and the spring's potential energy, considering gravitational effects and the nature of the spring's extension.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the formulation of potential and kinetic energy for the pendulums and the spring, questioning the consistency of variable definitions and the assumptions made about displacements. There is an exploration of how to express the spring's potential energy based on the relative positions of the pendulums.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning each other's reasoning. Some have suggested alternative formulations for the potential energy of the spring, while others are clarifying the definitions of extensions and equilibrium positions. There is no explicit consensus yet, but various interpretations and approaches are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential inconsistencies in the notation used for the pendulums' positions and the spring's extension. There is an ongoing examination of how to account for both horizontal and vertical components in the energy expressions, as well as the implications of small angle approximations.

  • #31
I get that ##A = M^{-1}K##. I now have to diagonalise A. In my previous problems I have simply put the ansatz of ##\underline{x} = \underline{P}(a \cos (wt) + b \sin (wt))## and this has allowed me to obtain the form ##G\underline{P} = \lambda \underline{P}##.

Is it what I should do here? It seems appropraite given the form of the energy and eqn of motion.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Why do you need to diagonalize it? Are you supposed to find a closed-form solution?
 
  • #33
voko said:
Why do you need to diagonalize it? Are you supposed to find a closed-form solution?

Yes, I am supposed to find a general solution to the equation of motion. This is probably a bit late to ask but what is the underlying physics behind diagonalising a matrix?
 
  • #34
The physics is mostly in eigenvalues and eigenvectors. These correspond to "pure tones", so to speak, which any complex motion of the system can be made of.

Diagonalization is a mathematical device that makes use of these physical elements to render the problem in a form easier to deal with. One could also say that it transforms the problem from the "ad hoc" coordinates that we used to describe the problem initially, into "intrinsic" or "physical" coordinates.
 
  • #35
voko said:
The physics is mostly in eigenvalues and eigenvectors. These correspond to "pure tones", so to speak, which any complex motion of the system can be made of.

Diagonalization is a mathematical device that makes use of these physical elements to render the problem in a form easier to deal with. One could also say that it transforms the problem from the "ad hoc" coordinates that we used to describe the problem initially, into "intrinsic" or "physical" coordinates.

Thanks voko, I can take the rest of the question from here. Now to try the next problem - a double pendulum... :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
976
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
928
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K