What is the ratio of successive thetas in an undamped and undriven pendulum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fuligni
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pendulum Ratio
AI Thread Summary
In an undamped and undriven pendulum, the angle of rotation, Theta(t), can be expressed using the small angle approximation, where sin(theta) approximates to theta. The ratio of successive angles measured in increments of half periods is given by theta(t=T)/theta(t=0) = cos(wt+phi). Substituting w = sqrt(g/L) and t=T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g) results in a ratio of cos(2*pi + phi), which simplifies to 1.0, indicating that the angle does not decrease over time. This reflects the theoretical nature of the pendulum, which swings indefinitely without energy loss.
fuligni
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hello friends,

I have a question on the simple undamped and undriven pendulum. I see that according to the website:

http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/Pendulum/Pendula.html

the angle of rotation, Theta(t), can be expressed in terms of the starting angle using the small angle approximation sin(theta) = theta.

my question is, what is the ratio of successive thetas if we measure theta in increments of half periods ? the website shows:

theta(t) = theta(t=0)*cos(wt+phi)

i am interested in the ratio: theta(t=T)/theta(t=0) = cos(wt+phi)

if we substitute w = sqrt(g/L) and t=T = 2*pi*sqrt(L/g) into the right side of this ratio we get:

ratio = cos(2*pi + phi)

but cos(2*pi) = 1.0.

I don't see where i am going wrong since shouldn't the angle decrease over time until it is zero and the pendulum is stopped.

I am curious to see if the ratio of successive theta's is constant.

thankyou,
chris
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The pendulum is UNdamped. No air resistance, no loss of energy. Real pendulums do indeed act like you think -- they stop eventually -- but this is only a theoretical pendulum.
 
sorry,,
i see that without friction, the pendulum swings forever and the ratio is 1.0 as the equations show.
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Back
Top