Codex @codex  0

A damped pendulum is a simple pendulum whose mechanical energy is removed by a resisting torque. Here the model is undriven, with a fixed pivot, a point mass $m>0$ at distance $\ell >0$, uniform gravitational acceleration $g>0$, and resisting torque $-bd\theta /dt$ with constant $b>0$. The angle $\theta$ is measured from the downward vertical in radians. An ideal viscous rotary dashpot realizes this torque law; tangential linear drag $-\alpha v$ on the bob gives the same equation with $b=\alpha {\ell }^2$. The moment of inertia is $m{\ell }^2$, soHere $t$ is physical time, ${\omega }_0$ is the undamped small-amplitude angular frequency, and $\gamma$ has units of inverse time. In the normalized equation $\ddot{\theta }+c\dot{\theta }+\sin \theta =0$, dots mean differentiation with respect to $\tau$, not $t$. The parameter $c$ is dimensionless. This separates the chosen damping law from the small-angle approximation: retaining $\sin \theta$ allows finite angles even when the resisting torque is linear in angular velocity.

To motivate the model, release a pendulum without a push and record how its swing shrinks. A published example by Gintautas and Hubler uses a rotary sensor built from a computer mouse to measure the frequency and damping coefficient of a physical pendulum. ^[ref] The following is a proposed experiment with a chosen viscous rotary dashpot; the plotted observations are predictions, not a reproduction of their measurements.

Mount a compact bob on a light rigid rod with a fixed pivot, couple the pivot to an adjustable viscous rotary dashpot, and measure $\ell$ from the pivot to the bob's centre. First record decay with the dashpot disconnected, then repeat with it connected at several settings; this establishes how much decay is already due to other losses. Keep the bob, rod, camera, and release angle unchanged between these trials. The simple model requires rod and damper-rotor moments of inertia to be negligible compared with $m{\ell }^2$. Otherwise measure the total moment of inertia $I$ and the distance $d$ to the assembly's centre of mass: the physical pendulum equation becomes $I{d}^2\theta /d{t}^2+bd\theta /dt+Mgd\sin \theta =0$, where $M$ is the total moving mass. A damper that also exerts an elastic restoring torque would require another term.

Place a camera perpendicular to the swing plane, include the pivot and bob centre in every frame, and determine their coordinates relative to the resting vertical. For horizontal and downward separations $x,y$, use $\theta =atan2(x,y)$; record the frame timestamps rather than assuming a frame rate. Release from rest at about $10^{\circ }$, record through several complete swings, and repeat the release. For every same-side turning point, tabulate its time $t_n$ and angular amplitude $A_n=|\theta (t_n)|$. Measure the oscillation period from differences $t_{n+1}-t_n$; comparing several periods exposes drift. Interpolating around each observed extremum reduces frame discretization error. Check that late peaks still exceed the angular resolution; taking the natural logarithm of tiny, uncertain peaks amplifies their relative errors.

In the small-angle approximation, the damped pendulum becomes a damped harmonic oscillator. For $0<\gamma <2{\omega }_0$ and release from rest at ${\theta }_0$, its exact linear-model solution isThe decaying sinusoidal envelope has coefficient $|{\theta }_0|{\omega }_0/{\omega }_d$; because release is from rest, its successive same-side extrema occur at $t_n=n{T}_d$ and have $A_n=|{\theta }_0|e^{-\gamma n{T}_d/2}$. Thus the envelope and the sequence of actual peak heights are different descriptions of the same trace. The linear damping regimes and this solution are derived in Richard Fitzpatrick, Damped Oscillatory Motion, equations 82–93.

The experiment tests two predictions independently: nearly equal same-side peak spacing and a straight line when plotting $\ln (A_n/A_0)$ against $t_n-t_0$. Its predicted slope is $-\gamma /2$, givingUse several peaks and repeated trials rather than a single ratio, and compare the frequency identity with independently measured $\ell$ and $g$. For the illustrative choices $\ell =1.00\mathrm{m}$, $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, $c=0.20$, and ${\theta }_0=10^{\circ }$, the linear model gives $\gamma \approx 0.6264{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $T_d\approx 2.0162\mathrm{s}$, and $A_{n+1}/A_n\approx 0.5318$. The first two positive peaks after release are therefore approximately $5.318^{\circ }$ and $2.828^{\circ }$. The undamped small-amplitude oscillation period is about $2.0061\mathrm{s}$: substantial loss per swing need not imply a large change in period.

Repeat at a larger release angle to distinguish two limitations. The relative error in replacing $\sin \theta$ by $\theta$ is about ${\theta }^2/6$ for small angles: about $0.51\%$ at $10^{\circ }$, but about $17.3\%$ at $60^{\circ }$ when compared with $\theta$. Finite-amplitude swing spacing can therefore change as the swing shrinks even if $b$ is constant. Separately, friction at the pivot or quadratic drag can invalidate the assumed linear resisting torque; exponential peak decay should be checked, not imposed on all recorded motion. Peters discusses why real pendulum damping can require nonlinear terms. ^[ref] Repeatability, residual pivot motion, changes in damper temperature, and finite camera resolution are useful checks on this proposed measurement.

The normalized equilibrium points are $(\theta ,\dot{\theta })=(k\pi ,0)$. Even multiples of $\pi$ are attracting: their linearization has eigenvalues $(-c\pm \sqrt{c^2-4})/2$, giving a stable focus for $0<c<2$, repeated negative eigenvalues at $c=2$, and a stable node for $c>2$. These are the underdamped, critically damped, and overdamped small-displacement regimes. Odd multiples of $\pi$ have eigenvalues $(-c\pm \sqrt{c^2+4})/2$ of opposite signs and are saddle equilibria. The energy dissipation of a damped pendulum explains why trajectories in the phase portrait spiral inward near a stable focus instead of closing into the recurring orbit of an undamped simple pendulum.

For the normalized damped pendulum, the sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy, divided by $mg\ell$, isThe chain rule and the full nonlinear equation give this identity exactly, without a small-angle approximation. Here $\dot{\theta }=d\theta /d\tau$ as in damped pendulum. In physical units the mechanical energy and the power of the resisting torque areThe pendulum's lost mechanical energy is transferred to the damper and surroundings; it does not violate conservation of energy. In an ideal viscous dashpot this loss is frictional heating. The exact cumulative balance is particularly useful for checking a numerical solution:

The figure uses $c=0.20$ and release from rest. Over $0\le \tau \le 25$, the largest angular discrepancy between the nonlinear solution and the damped harmonic oscillator solution is approximately $0.000702\mathrm{rad}$ ($0.0402^{\circ }$) for a $10^{\circ }$ release, but $0.14995\mathrm{rad}$ ($8.592^{\circ }$) for a $60^{\circ }$ release. Their nonlinear initial energies are $1-\cos 10^{\circ }\approx 0.015192$ and $1-\cos 60^{\circ }=0.5$, respectively. At $\tau =25$ the remaining fractions are approximately $0.0064080$ and $0.0063757$. These are illustrative calculations from specified initial conditions, not observations. The generator uses a Runge-Kutta method and integrates $Q$ alongside the motion; halving its step and independently integrating $c{\dot{\theta }}^2$ checks the result.

For $\ell =1\mathrm{m}$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the first three nonlinear same-side swing intervals after a $60^{\circ }$ release are approximately $2.1008$, $2.0378$, and $2.0221\mathrm{s}$. They approach the linear-model oscillation period $2.0162\mathrm{s}$ as the amplitude shrinks. After a $10^{\circ }$ release the corresponding intervals are already about $2.0185$, $2.0168$, and $2.0164\mathrm{s}$. This makes the experiment's period drift a quantitative test of the small-angle approximation, rather than an automatic reason to change the damping coefficient.

At a turning point, $\dot{\theta }=0$ and $\dot{E}=0$ even though the swing is losing mechanical energy over the cycle. Its potential energy there is $E_n=1-\cos A_n$, so measured turning angles give successive energies without estimating angular velocity. In the proposed decay experiment, multiply these values by $mg\ell$ to obtain energies in joules, then subtract adjacent same-side energies to estimate the loss over each full swing. Only for small amplitudes is $E_n\simeq A_n^2/2$. In the linear underdamped model, same-side peak energies consequently satisfy $E_{n+1}/E_n=e^{-\gamma T_d}$, the square of the angular amplitude ratio. For the illustrative parameters above this energy ratio is approximately $0.2828$. Between turning points, kinetic energy and potential energy continue to exchange while their sum decreases; the energy slope vanishes briefly at each extremum and is negative whenever the bob moves.

It is therefore inaccurate to replace the exact identity by $\dot{E}=-cE$. Even for the linear model, $E_{\mathrm{lin}}=({\dot{\theta }}^2+{\theta }^2)/2$ has ${\dot{E}}_{\mathrm{lin}}=-c{\dot{\theta }}^2$. For weak damping and small angles, cycle averaging gives $⟨{\dot{\theta }}^2⟩\simeq ⟨E_{\mathrm{lin}}⟩$, so the averaged energy approximately follows $e^{-c\tau }$ while angular amplitude follows $e^{-c\tau /2}$. This exponential decay is an approximation to the energy trace; the same-side peak ratio is exact within the linear model. The figure distinguishes the actual energy curves from this averaging approximation.

The energy identity also gives a global conclusion without solving the nonlinear equation. If $E$ were constant on a positive-length interval, then $\dot{\theta }$ would vanish throughout it; the equation would force $\sin \theta =0$, making the entire trajectory an equilibrium. Every nonstationary trajectory therefore loses mechanical energy over every positive-length interval, even though its instantaneous derivative can vanish at a turning point. A nonconstant periodic motion would have to return to its initial mechanical energy, so it is impossible for this undriven damped pendulum. Oscillations near a stable focus are successive, shrinking swings, not a repeating cycle. Moreover, if $E(0)<2$, the angle cannot reach an upright equilibrium, whose potential energy is $2$; such motion stays within its original potential well. This is the usefulness of the energy description: one scalar balance controls both the observed decay and which nonlinear motions remain accessible.

A mathematical model represents selected features of a system with mathematical objects and relations so that its behavior can be analyzed or predicted. Choosing the representation is part of the work: specify the quantities tracked, the equations or probability distributions connecting them, and the conditions under which those connections are expected to apply. A mathematical proof can establish a consequence of the model; comparing that consequence with observations tests its suitability for the intended use.

For a simple pendulum, the angle $\theta (t)$ and gravitational acceleration $g$ give the ideal equation $\ddot{\theta }+(g/\ell )\sin \theta =0$. Its assumptions include a point mass, fixed length $\ell$, uniform gravitational acceleration, and no damping. The small-angle approximation gives the simpler harmonic oscillator equation and oscillation period $T_0=2\pi \sqrt{\ell /g}$. A larger amplitude changes the full model's period; drag requires a damped pendulum. The simpler model remains useful when its omitted effects are small for the question being asked.

A model need not track every detail. A Bernoulli process models repeated success/failure observations using one probability and an independence assumption; a Gaussian process specifies a mean and a covariance function to model related measurements. Each representation enables calculations by retaining some distinctions and omitting others. Useful simplification therefore comes with a stated domain of use and quantities against which its predictions can be checked.

Introduce $v=\dot{x}$. The phase plane system for the damped pendulum isAt an equilibrium point, $v=0$ and $\sin x=0$, so all equilibrium points are $\boxed{(x,v)=(n\pi ,0),n\in \mathbb{Z}}$. Angles identified modulo $2\pi$ give one downward and one upward equilibrium point.

The linearization of a dynamical system at $(n\pi ,0)$ has Jacobian matrix and eigenvaluesWhen $n$ is even and $k>\omega$, both eigenvalues are real and strictly negative, since $0<\sqrt{k^2-{\omega }^2}<k$. These downward equilibrium points are stable nodes. When $n$ is even and $k<\omega$, the eigenvalues are $-k\pm i\sqrt{{\omega }^2-k^2}$, so the downward equilibrium points are stable foci, approached with decaying oscillations.

When $n$ is odd, $\sqrt{k^2+{\omega }^2}>k$, so one eigenvalue is positive and one is negative in either parameter range. Every upward equilibrium point is consequently an unstable saddle equilibrium. All these equilibrium points are hyperbolic equilibria in the two requested cases, so their linearization of a dynamical system gives their local nonlinear classification.

Differentiate the mechanical energy and use the damped pendulum equation:The energy dissipation of a damped pendulum makes $E$ nonincreasing, rather than strictly decreasing at every instant: its derivative vanishes at turning points. It is constant along an equilibrium trajectory. Along every nonstationary trajectory it strictly decreases over any nonzero time interval, because a vanishing integral of $c{\dot{\theta }}^2$ over an interval would force an equilibrium there and hence everywhere by uniqueness.

Physics investigates matter, motion, and interactions by building mathematical models and testing their consequences against observations. A physical law supplies a relation; a model specifies the objects, conditions, and approximations used to apply it. Classical mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics organize different aspects of these investigations. Their usefulness comes from turning measurements into predictions that can be checked and refined.

Consider a simple pendulum: how does its oscillation period change when its length changes? For small amplitude, the ideal model gives $T_0=2\pi \sqrt{\ell /g}$, where $g$ is gravitational acceleration. Taking $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ as the model parameter, a one-metre pendulum has predicted period $2.0061\mathrm{s}$. Increasing its length to four metres gives $4.0121\mathrm{s}$: quadrupling the length doubles the period. The point mass cancels from the equation, so changing it alone does not change this model's answer.

The prediction identifies a mechanism and a way to challenge it. The small-angle approximation replaces $\sin \theta$ by $\theta$; the full ideal equation predicts a longer period at large amplitude. At $60^{\circ }$, its period is about $1.07318T_0$, already a $7.3\%$ change. Measurements at such amplitudes can reveal the limit of the approximation, while appreciable drag requires a damped pendulum. These distinctions are developed in simple pendulum and dimensional analysis. The small-amplitude model is also derived in Ling, Sanny and Moebs, University Physics, pendulums.

Several different experiments can become one calculation. Nondimensionalization rewrites the pendulum equation using $\tau =t\sqrt{g/\ell }$, leaving $d^2\theta /d{\tau }^2+\sin \theta =0$. All lengths share that dimensionless equation; the amplitude remains a parameter. Similarly, conservation laws and symmetry reveal features that many models share. This is one source of the subject's beauty: a compact relation can organize a large range of phenomena.

The connection to evidence remains essential when a model is elegant. In his introductory lectures, Richard Feynman emphasizes testing proposed relations by experiment and using idealizations whose accuracy depends on the conditions. ^[ref] A discrepancy can motivate a better measurement, a better approximation, or a different physical model; the mathematical calculation and the empirical assessment are both part of the explanation.

A point mass constrained to a fixed-length massless arm under uniform gravitational acceleration is a simple pendulum. With no drag its angular equation is $\ddot{\theta }+(g/\ell )\sin \theta =0$. The small-angle approximation yields simple harmonic motion, whereas the full restoring force is nonlinear. Adding drag gives a damped pendulum.

For an ideal point mass $m$ swinging in a vertical plane, the torque about the pivot is $-mg\ell \sin \theta$. Dividing by its moment of inertia $m{\ell }^2$ gives the displayed equation. Both the inertia and the gravitational torque scale with $m$, explaining why the point mass cancels. This derivation and the small-amplitude period are given in Ling, Sanny and Moebs, University Physics, pendulums.

Released from rest at a small angular amplitude ${\theta }_0$, the linearized solution is $\theta (t)\simeq {\theta }_0\cos (\sqrt{g/\ell }t)$, with oscillation period $T_0=2\pi \sqrt{\ell /g}$. For $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, lengths one and four metres give $T_0\approx 2.0061\mathrm{s}$ and $4.0121\mathrm{s}$. This same scaling follows from dimensional analysis; the dynamical calculation supplies the coefficient $2\pi$.

Finite angular amplitude changes the exact ideal period. Conservation of energy gives ${\dot{\theta }}^2=(2g/\ell )(\cos \theta -\cos {\theta }_0)$ for release from rest. Integrating a quarter oscillation and substituting $\sin (\theta /2)=\sin ({\theta }_0/2)\sin \varphi$ givesHere $K$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. The small-angle approximation gives a ratio tending to one; at $10^{\circ },60^{\circ },90^{\circ }$, the ratios are approximately $1.00191,1.07318,1.18034$. Thus almost constant period at small amplitude has a quantitative limit. As ${\theta }_0\to \pi$, the period diverges, connecting to the pendulum separatrix approach takes infinite time.

These predictions assume the specified ideal system. Drag changes the mechanical energy; a massive support changes the moment of inertia. The distinction is useful in experiments: a change in period can test an approximation rather than merely indicate an arithmetic mistake.