How Does Torque Balance Apply to an Upside Down Vertical Pendulum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pendulum Vertical
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of torque balance to an upside down vertical pendulum, where the mass is at the top. The user questions the torque balance equation provided by their professor, suggesting that it should incorporate the moment of inertia, leading to a revised equation involving the length of the pendulum. They clarify that without the external torque, the angular acceleration equation simplifies to a form dependent on gravitational forces. The user concludes that the angle is measured from the highest point, which explains the absence of a negative sign in the equation. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of correctly applying torque and angular motion principles in pendulum dynamics.
member 428835
hi pf!

i am looking at a simply problem dealing with an upside down vertical pendulum of length ##L## having mass ##m## at the top. i believe my professor wrote that a torque balance yields ##m \ddot{\theta} = mg\sin \theta + f(t)## where ##f## is a torque (i think) and ##\theta## is the angle the pendulum makes with the vertical axis.

my question is how the left hand side works? isn't Newton's second law extrapolated for angular rotation as moment of inertia times angular acceleration equals sum of torques? if so, wouldn't we have ##m L^2 \ddot{\theta} = mgL\sin \theta + f(t)## as the torque balance?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hey, yeah, I think you're right. In any case, without the torque it should be
\ddot{\theta}=\frac{g}{L} \sin{\theta}
So maybe your professor forgot to write the ##L## in there.

edit: p.s. I'm guessing the angle is being measured from the highest point, hence no negative sign on the right hand side
 
thanks for your input! makes me feel better about it.
 
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...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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