-2
$\begingroup$

I've defined the origin as the center of rotation for the particle on the pendulum. Then: $$ x = r\cos{\theta} $$ $$ y = r\sin{\theta} $$ $$z = 0$$ From here, the potential energy is $V = 0$ since $z = 0$, and the kinetic energy is $K = \frac{1}{2}m(r\dot{\theta})^2 = L$.

Putting this into $\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}(\frac{\partial L}{\partial\dot{\theta}}) = \frac{\partial L}{\partial\theta}$ yields $mr^2\ddot{\theta} = 0$ which would assume that there is no acceleration, which is false. What mistake am I making?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Does this help? physics.stackexchange.com/a/320689/249986 One thing that stands out with your approach is that you've completely lost that there's actually a pendulum involved. Your system is indistinguishable from a particle moving in the plane. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps the key issue is that, while conical pendula do move along a circle with constant angular velocity, your coordinates are perhaps not the canonical quantities of the problem. The pendulum length and angle the pendulum itself makes are more natural. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ Using the pendulum length and the angle, one could express the radius of the motion. Does the approach here make a difference, or is it just the end result that's important? $\endgroup$
    – adelaide
    Commented Mar 24 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ What does "end result" mean to you? If you're only interested in the final equation of motion for a conical pendulum, then sure, but if you want your equations of motion to reflect more closely what a pendulum with three dimensions of motion should look like, then the other approach is better. After you make simplifying assumptions like $\theta$ is fixed, you'll get the same end result. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ You need to include the potential term. If there is no potential term then this system is not a pendulum. You have set $V=0$ seemingly because you are confused about the direction of gravity... $\endgroup$
    – hft
    Commented Mar 24 at 16:47

1 Answer 1

-1
$\begingroup$

Before setting and solving the problem, let's focus on the two main issues of your model:

  • you're not considering any gravitational field, $\boldsymbol{g}$, that I'll take uniform throughout the whole space and pointing downwards, $\boldsymbol{g} = -g \boldsymbol{\hat{z}}$;
  • you're not using any coordinate to describe the rotation around the vertical axis.

enter image description here

Solving these issues, the Cartesian coordinates of the position and the velocity of the mass become

$$\begin{cases} x = L \sin \theta \cos \phi \\ y = L \sin \theta \sin \phi \\ z = - L \cos \theta \end{cases} \qquad \ , \qquad \begin{cases} v_x = L \left( \dot{\theta} \cos \theta \cos \phi - \dot{\phi} \sin \theta \sin \phi \right) \\ v_y = L \left( \dot{\theta} \cos \theta \sin \phi + \dot{\phi} \sin \theta \cos \phi \right) \\ v_z = L \dot{\theta} \sin \theta \end{cases} $$ while the kinetic energy becomes $$ K = \frac{1}{2} m |\boldsymbol{v}|^2 = \frac{1}{2} m L^2\left( \dot{\theta}^2 + \dot{\phi}^2 \sin^2 \theta \right)$$ the potential $$ U = - m g z = m g L \cos \theta \ .$$

Lagrange equations $$\frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \dot{q}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial q} = 0$$ read

$$\begin{aligned} 0 & = \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \dot{\theta}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \theta} = m L^2 \ddot{\theta} - m L^2 \dot{\phi}^2 \cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} + m g L \sin{\theta} \\ 0 & = \frac{d}{dt} \left(\frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \dot{\phi}} \right) - \frac{\partial \mathscr{L}}{\partial \phi} = m L^2 \sin^2 \theta \ddot{\phi} + 2 m L^2 \sin \theta \cos \theta \dot{\phi} \dot{\theta} \ . \end{aligned}$$

From the point of view of the balance equations of momentum or angular momentum, the former equation is the dynamical equation of the component of the angular momentum orthogonal to the plane identified by angle $\phi$, while the latter equation is the conservation of the z-component of the angular momentum.

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the awesome visualization! $\endgroup$
    – adelaide
    Commented Mar 24 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ I won't say anything, since you've already suspended my account for one week. I'd like to stress that this is an anonymous and unmotivated downvote, as it has already happened many times. I'd like to tell that this behaviour is dangerous for the site, if you like that to be something more than a "few friend club" $\endgroup$
    – basics
    Commented Mar 24 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ I'm the one who downvoted. Your answer misses an important if not essential point of Lagrangian mechanics: it is based on scalar quantities. Thus, the expression of $\vec v$ in some complicated coordinate system is entirely unwarranted since you can immediately start with cylindrical coordinates and obtain the same results without all the shananighans of unit vectors changing directions in time. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ See also this post. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 24 at 21:13
  • $\begingroup$ This wasn't marked as a homework question, when I provided an answer. For the comment about the choice of coordinates, you should know better than anyone else that the solution is independent on the coordinates, and Cartesian coordinates is one of the less tricky choices when you talk to a not-so-expert user, especially when you have to calculate derivatives. So, imho, this the usual poor downvote of a gang $\endgroup$
    – basics
    Commented Mar 24 at 21:16

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.