5

Suppose you have a physical pendulum. It is true that as amplitude increases, the period increases. Can we demonstrate this fact without explicitly finding the period (which is pretty involved and pretty messy) in:

  1. an intuitive fashion,

  2. rigorously?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
math_lover
  • 4,526
  • 10
  • 47
  • 92
  • It is real easy to calculate the period of a pendulum. Just search the web for pendulum period formula. – LDC3 Jan 12 '15 at 04:30
  • This lecture note from MIT rigorously shows this fact: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-07-dynamics-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec24.pdf . I'm not sure though how you would intuitively show it. – docscience Jan 12 '15 at 04:30
  • @LDC3: I assume the question applies to displacements large enough that the pendulum is no longer a simple harmonic oscillator. – John Rennie Jan 12 '15 at 12:11

4 Answers4

2

Let's draw our pendulum:

Pendulum

The equation of motion is:

$$ F\ell = -I\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} $$

This may seem a bit unfamiliar, but it's just the circular motion equivalent of $F = ma$. We replace the force by the torque, $F\ell$, the mass by the moment of inertia $I$ and the acceleration by the angular acceleration $\ddot{\theta}$. A bit of quick geometry gives us $F = mg\sin\theta$, so our equation becomes:

$$ mg\sin\theta\ell = -I\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} $$

Assuming our mass is a point, the moment of intertia is just $I = m\ell^2$, and with a quick rearrangement we get:

$$ \frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} = -\frac{g}{\ell}\sin\theta $$

What your physics teacher will do next is point out that $\sin\theta$ can be expanded as a power series:

$$ \sin\theta = \theta - \frac{\theta^3}{3!} + \frac{\theta^5}{5!} - ... $$

and if $\theta$ is small then the higher powers of $\theta$ are very small and we get $\sin\theta \approx \theta$. Substitute this for $\sin\theta$ in our equation above and we get:

$$ \frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} = -\frac{g}{\ell}\theta \tag{1} $$

which is our good old simple harmonic motion equation.

Now we can answer your question, because if we keep increasing the angle of swing we're going to get to a point where the $\theta^3$ term is too large to be ignored. In that case our equation (1) becomes:

$$ \frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2} = -\frac{g}{\ell}\left(\theta - \frac{\theta^3}{3!}\right) \tag{2} $$

Now take two pendulums (penduli?), one described by the simple harmonic equation (1) and one described my our more accurate equation (2), and start them at some initial angle $\theta_0$. The angular acceleration calculated by equation (2) is less than the angular acceleration calculated by equation (1) for all values of $\theta$ (except at $\theta = 0$). So if both penduli start at the same place, $\theta_0$, pendulum 2 must take longer to get to $\theta = 0$ than pendulum 1 will. But this time is just a quarter of the period, and that means the period of pendulum 2 must be greater than the period of pendulum 1. So for a real pendulum the period must increase with increasing amplitude of swing.

John Rennie
  • 355,118
1

Here's a solution which is similar to John Rennie's but hopefully less involved. I'll steal his image, too: free-body diagram for a plane pendulum

The pendulum has kinetic energy $T$, potential energy $U$, and total energy $E=T+U$, where $$ T = \frac12 m\ell^2 \dot\theta^2, \quad\quad U = mg\ell(1-\cos\theta). $$

The simple harmonic approximation takes the limit $\theta\ll1$, where $$ U = mg\ell \left( \frac{\theta^2}{2!} - \frac{\theta^2}{4!} + \cdots \right) \approx mg\ell \frac{\theta^2}2 \equiv U_\text{quadratic} $$ Now it's clear at small $\theta$, and happens to be the case for all $\theta$, that $U_\text{quadratic}$ is an overestimate of $U$:

cosine approximation

Therefore whatever our starting $\theta$ happens to be, using the simple harmonic approximation $U_\text{quadratic}$ predicts too much total energy $E$, and correspondingly too much kinetic energy $T$ --- our physical pendulum goes slower than in the approximation. The prediction of a constant period $\tau_\text{quadratic} = 2\pi\sqrt{\ell/g}$ is therefore an underestimate, and the underestimate gets worse for large amplitudes, so the period must increase with amplitude.

rob
  • 89,569
0

The frequency of a simple pendulum is easy to compute, even for large angular amplitudes. Consider the pendulum in the figure below.Simple pendulum at moment of maximum deflection

For small amplitudes ($2l-d << l$) this pendulum oscillates at angular frequency $\omega_+=\sqrt{g/l}$.

Now we define a pendulum with a 'reciprocal' length $l'=2l^2/d$. This reciprocal pendulum has a small amplitude frequency $\omega_-=\sqrt{gd/2l^2}$. Quite amazingly, the frequency of the original pendulum (of length $l$) can be written as $$\omega=agm(\omega_+,\omega_-)$$ Here, $agm$ denotes the arithmetic-geometric mean, first studied by Gauss.

Now, it is easy to see that based on $d<2l$ the arm of the reciprocal pendulum is always longer than the arm of the original pendulum, and therefore $\omega_-<\omega_+$ always holds, and $\omega_-$ decreases whenever $d$ decreases. The $agm$ is real easy to compute (Google is your friend here), but all we need to ensure that $\omega$ decreases when $d$ decreases (and hence the amplitude increases), is the simple fact that $agm$ really acts as a mean. In other words, $agm(\omega_+,\omega_-)$ decreases if $\omega_-$ decreases while $\omega_+$ stays fixed. Presto.

Johannes
  • 19,015
-2

The risk of an "intuitive" answer is that people's intuitions often go awry.

Here's an intuitive answer: Take two identical pendulums. Release one at $\theta$ and the other at $2*\theta$ from vertical. No matter what else, the pendulum that starts from farther away can never "catch up" to the other one. In addition, since it's obvious that it will have greater K.E. at vertical, it will travel farther "up" the far side. After all, if you drop two balls from different heights, the higher one will always take longer to reach the ground. (except now you need to prove that, too :-( )

That's great, but someone else will say "but what if the $2*\theta$ pendulum accelerates so fast it catches up?" [sort of like the infamous "hot water freezes faster than cold" argument] And so on. At some point you're going to have to use a little math to prove your case.

Carl Witthoft
  • 10,979
  • @Kevin - please edit so it's comprehensible; meantime, I'm not convinced your magnet situation gives the results you claim. – Carl Witthoft Jan 12 '15 at 18:45
  • The "hot water freezes faster" can't happen IF the entire system is described by one degree of freedom: the temperature. Real life hot water can freeze faster (http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/3Mar10A20St20420Web20page.jpg) when the actual system is more complex. A pendulum bob has 2 degrees of freedom: force and velocity. A faster bob can surpass a slower one because velocities are different. Temperature does not have a "velocity term" appearing in the differential equation that governs it's change. Position does. – Kevin Kostlan Jan 12 '15 at 18:51
  • "faster can pass if it's moving faster" thanks for the tautology. I think you're missing my point, which was to show how easy it is to make major mistakes when using purely "intuitive" reasoning. – Carl Witthoft Jan 12 '15 at 18:55
  • -1 It is not intuitive that the pendulum with larger amplitude cannot catch up to that with smaller amplitude. eg See the counter-intuitive result of this experiment : Curved Slope faster than linear? – sammy gerbil Nov 18 '17 at 00:45
  • @sammygerbil That's a false equivalence. Just try to make marbles on any of those slopes catch up to another marble on the same slope. If your intuition suggests 'yes' to that or to the pendulum, you have serious disconnects with physical reality. – Carl Witthoft Nov 20 '17 at 14:40
  • 1
    Fair point, it is not equivalent. However, I do not think it is intuitive/obvious that the larger amplitude pendulum cannot catch up. If the restoring force were exactly proportional to displacement then it would catch up at the equilibrium position (true SHM). For the simple pendulum the restoring force is less than proportional to displacement, so the larger-amplitude pendulum doesn't catch up. However, it is conceivable that restoring force could be greater than proportional to displacement, in which case the larger amplitude pendulum would overtake before the equilibrium point. – sammy gerbil Nov 20 '17 at 15:16
  • 1
    The larger amplitude pendulum has further to travel, but it accelerates faster. It is not intuitive which factor will win. As you concede, some math is required in order to decide. – sammy gerbil Nov 20 '17 at 15:24
  • Perhaps I am misunderstanding your answer. Are you arguing that intuition isn't reliable? I would agree with that. – sammy gerbil Nov 20 '17 at 15:45
  • In a tautochrone pendulum, an object that starts higher does catch up, so your argument doesn't really work. – Chris Feb 14 '18 at 07:28
  • @Chris I'm familiar with the brachistochrone (and that it's a solution to the Principle of Least Action). The OP was talking specifically about a standard pendulum of unchanging length. – Carl Witthoft Feb 14 '18 at 13:16
  • @CarlWitthoft I'm aware. Your argument doesn't use this fact anywhere, though. It just asserts anything that starts higher up can obviously never catch up. Two marbles on the same cycloid slope started at different heights will always hit each other. – Chris Feb 14 '18 at 18:09