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.

The moment of inertia about a specified axis measures how a mass distribution resists changes of angular velocity about that axis. For point masses $m_i$ at perpendicular distances $r_{\perp i}$, or a continuous distribution with mass density $\rho$,Its SI unit is $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The distance is to the entire axis, not to one point on it: moving a point mass along the axis leaves its contribution unchanged. The moment of inertia depends on both the distribution and the chosen axis; it is not determined by total mass alone. About an axis fixed in an inertial frame, a rigid body with larger moment of inertia has smaller angular acceleration under the same net axial torque, and greater rotational kinetic energy at the same angular speed.^[ref]

For a simple model, put four equal point masses of total mass $M$ on light rigid spokes at radius $a$. Their moment of inertia is $M{a}^2$. Doubling $a$ quadruples the moment of inertia without changing $M$. The illustrated placements $a=R/3$ and $a=R$ give $M{R}^2/9$ and $M{R}^2$. Actual spokes and finite-sized weights contribute their own moments of inertia; the point mass model neglects them. Repositioning weights during rotation also breaks the fixed-distribution assumption, so it requires a separate work and angular momentum calculation.

The moment of inertia of a uniform disc follows by dividing it into concentric annuli: $dm=(2M/R^2)rdr$ and $I={\int }_0^R{r}^2(2M/R^2)rdr=M{R}^2/2$. For an ideal thin ring every mass element is at $R$, so $I=M{R}^2$. A ring of finite radial thickness instead uses the moment of inertia of a uniform annulus, $I=M(R^2+b^2)/2$, with inner radius $b$. A moment of inertia is thus a compact summary of radial placement rather than a complete description of shape. For several joined pieces, their moments of inertia add only when each is calculated about the same axis.^[ref]

A physical pendulum makes the moment of inertia measurable through timing. Martín Monteiro, Cecilia Stari, Cecilia Cabeza and Arturo C. Martí used a metal bar with suspension holes $1.0\mathrm{cm}$ apart and an attached smartphone. They report bar length $1.199\mathrm{m}$, bar mass $0.2518\mathrm{kg}$ and phone mass $0.1311\mathrm{kg}$. Changing the suspension hole changes the pivot axis. Their readouts were phone gyroscope angular velocity records, analyzed by autocorrelation or a fit to a sinusoid, and an independent photogate; the logged records for the sinusoid fits lasted $10\mathrm{s}$. They observed agreement between the three timing methods and the geometry-based model, including a minimum of oscillation period as the suspension point varied. These are reported apparatus details and observations, not measurements made for this article.^[ref]

To infer a moment of inertia from such a measurement, determine the total mass $M_{\mathrm{tot}}$ including every attached part, locate the assembly's centre of mass $G$, and measure its distance $h>0$ below the horizontal pivot $O$. Record successive crossings in the same direction, or the elapsed time $t_N$ for $N$ complete oscillations, giving oscillation period $P=t_N/N$. The physical pendulum model with a fixed pivot, a uniform gravitational field, negligible friction and the small-angle approximation givesThe crossing times, masses and geometric distances are the measured inputs; $I_{O,\mathrm{inferred}}$ is an inference conditional on this model, while an integral over the assumed shape supplies an independent model prediction. The parallel axis theorem converts the inferred pivot moment of inertia to one about a parallel axis through $G$. The controls and interpretation of that comparison are described there. An axial measurement determines one scalar moment of inertia, not the complete inertia tensor needed for general rotation.

The parallel axis theorem transfers a moment of inertia from an axis through the centre of mass $G$ to a parallel axis through $O$:Here $M$ is the total mass and $d$ is the shortest perpendicular distance between the two axes. Both moments of inertia concern the same mass distribution and the same axis direction. The axis for $I_G$ must pass through the centre of mass; $I_O$ may refer to an axis outside the body. No uniform-density or planar-shape assumption is needed. Within any family of parallel axes, the centre of mass axis minimizes the moment of inertia.^[ref]

A short proof isolates why the centre of mass matters. Choose parallel axes perpendicular to an $xy$ plane, put $G$ at the origin, and place $O$ at $(d,0)$. Thenbecause $\int xdm=0$ in centre of mass coordinates. Individual mass elements can move closer to the new axis, but their weighted cross terms cancel. For arbitrary parallel axes $A$ and $B$, use $I_B-I_A=M(d_B^2-d_A^2)$, where each distance is measured from the parallel centre of mass axis; adding $M$ times the squared separation of $A$ and $B$ is generally incorrect. A displacement along the axis has $d=0$. Changing the axis direction instead requires the inertia tensor or, in its applicable planar setting, the perpendicular axis theorem.

For a uniform disc, mass $M$ and radius $R$, the central perpendicular moment of inertia is $I_G=M{R}^2/2$. Shifting that axis to the rim gives $d=R$ and $I_O=3M{R}^2/2$, three times $I_G$. In the computed $M=2\mathrm{kg}$, $R=0.30\mathrm{m}$ example, $I_G=0.090\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $M{d}^2=0.180\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $I_O=0.270\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. At angular speed $10rad/s$ the rim-pivoted disc has rotational kinetic energy $13.5\mathrm{J}$. Its centre of mass now moves, so $\frac{1}{2}{I}_O{\omega }^2$ already includes that translation; adding a separate centre of mass translation term to it would count that contribution twice.

The physical pendulum measurement described under moment of inertia provides a practical check: infer $I_O=Mgh(P/2\pi {)}^2$ at several pivot positions, then subtract $M{h}^2$ to obtain $I_G$. Keep all pivot axes parallel and measure $h$ to the centre of mass of the entire moving assembly. The same assembly should yield the same $I_G$ within measurement precision. If a smartphone is attached, its mass and its own moment of inertia belong in both the geometric prediction and the centre of mass calculation. The published bar-and-phone study explicitly adds both contributions using the parallel axis theorem.^[ref]

For a careful replication, release small swings without a push, repeat timings at several small amplitudes, and check that the extrapolated oscillation period is stable as amplitude decreases. Time many complete oscillations and repeat the run; two crossings of a photogate per cycle must not be mistaken for two cycles. Inspect decay of amplitude and compare early and late timings to detect significant pivot friction or air drag. Mark the bar and phone mount to detect relative slip, tighten the attachment, and check that the pivot support does not rock or migrate between holes. Repeat with an independent photogate or video readout to check the phone's timing. These are proposed controls for the replication, not additional results reported by the authors. The ideal model excludes appreciable damping, large swings and flexing; subtraction of $M{h}^2$ also magnifies relative errors when $I_G$ is much smaller than $I_O$.

The oscillation period need not increase monotonically with pivot distance: the shift raises the moment of inertia but also increases the gravitational restoring torque. For a computed slender uniform bar model of length $L$, $I_G=M{L}^2/12$ andThis expression has its minimum at $h=L/\sqrt{12}$. With $L=1\mathrm{m}$, $h=0.50\mathrm{m}$ and stipulated $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the prediction is $P\simeq 1.638\mathrm{s}$; it is not a recorded timing or a prediction for the bar with a phone attached. The competing terms explain why a timing experiment can reveal a mass distribution rather than merely its weight.

The moment of inertia of the uniform disc about its central perpendicular axis isThe parallel axis theorem gives $I_A=I_O+m{a}^2=3m{a}^2/2$. For angle $\beta$ from the downward resting position, the gravitational torque is $-mga\sin \beta$, so $I_A\ddot{\beta }=-mga\sin \beta$. Linearizing at $\beta =0$ gives $\ddot{\beta }+(2g/(3a))\beta =0$. Thus the uniform disc pivoted at its rim is a physical pendulum with period

The uniform rod has linear mass density $m/\ell$. Integrating squared distance from the pivot gives its moment of inertia about the axis perpendicular to the plane of motion:Measure $\theta$ from the downward vertical. The center of mass is at distance $\ell /2$ from the pivot, so gravity produces the restoring torque $-mg(\ell /2)\sin \theta$. The fixed-axis rotational equation of motion is $I_O\ddot{\theta }={\tau }_O$. Therefore the physical pendulum obeysThe pivot force has zero torque about the pivot.

Both instruments regulate a sequence of time intervals with an oscillator. A restoring action opposes displacement, while inertia carries the moving part through equilibrium. Their repeated swings control an escapement, which releases the gear train in steps and supplies enough energy to offset frictional losses.

For a simple pendulum of length $L$,At small amplitude, $\sin \theta \simeq \theta$, giving simple harmonic motion withA real clock pendulum is a physical pendulum. If its pivot moment of inertia is $I_p$ and its centre of gravity is a distance $d$ below the pivot, its small-swing period is $2\pi \sqrt{I_p/(Mgd)}$. Gravity supplies the restoring torque. A controlled swing amplitude and stable dimensions are needed: large swings, thermal expansion and changing effective gravity alter the rate.

A watch's balance wheel turns back and forth about its spindle. A torsion spring supplies an approximately linear restoring torque $-\kappa \varphi$, soThe restoring mechanism is elastic rather than gravitational. This makes the balance-spring system suitable for a portable watch, although disturbances, imperfect balance, changing spring properties and escapement interactions still affect the rate.

Near independence of period from amplitude is isochronism. It is approximate for the simple pendulum: its leading correction is $T/T_0=1+{\theta }_0^2/16+\cdots$ with ${\theta }_0$ in radians. Keeping the oscillations repeatable therefore matters as well as selecting the nominal period.

Let $\theta =0$ place the centre of mass vertically below a horizontal pivot axis. The restoring torque and rotational kinetic energy are $-mgh\sin \theta$ and $I{\dot{\theta }}^2/2$, soFor small angles, $\sin \theta =\theta +O({\theta }^3)$, and the equation reduces to simple harmonic motion. Thus the physical pendulum hasThis assumes negligible friction and a horizontal axis, with $h>0$. For a tilted axis the projected gravitational restoring torque changes; an axis through the centre of mass has no gravitational restoring torque.

For the general Lagrangian just obtained, the Euler-Lagrange equation givesUsing the small-angle approximation $\sin \theta \simeq \theta$, this is simple harmonic motion with ${\omega }_0^2=A/I$. ThusThe endpoint mass cancels in the light-rod limit. A concrete comparison shows why the finite rod cannot silently be included: the same specified endpoint $m$ with $M_r=m$ gives $T=2\pi \sqrt{8l/(9g)}$, distinct from the negligible-rod result. This is a physical pendulum when the rod contributes, and a simple pendulum in the light-rod limit. Both expressions require small oscillation amplitude; the full sine equation remains nonlinear.

The parallel axis theorem gives $I=I_{\mathrm{CM}}+M{d}^2$ for parallel axes separated by $d$, with the reference axis through the centre of mass. For a plane lamina, the perpendicular axis theorem gives $I_z=I_x+I_y$ for mutually perpendicular axes meeting at one point, with $x,y$ in the plane.

Treat the removed material as negative mass. With the hole's centre at $b\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, its moment of inertia about $O$ is $m(a^2/2+b^2)$. The remaining moment of inertia and centre of mass areFor a uniform original disk, $m/M=a^2/R^2$. Write $d_1=mb/(M-m)$ and measure $\varphi$ from the downward equilibrium direction of its centre of mass. The physical pendulum then has LagrangianThe Euler-Lagrange equation is $I_1\ddot{\varphi }+mbg\sin \varphi =0$. For small oscillations, $\sin \varphi \simeq \varphi$, givingNow add the removed small disk on the opposite side, with its centre a distance $c=R-a$ from $O$ so that it is internally tangent to the large disk. The total mass returns to $M$, while its first moment about $O$ is $-m(b+c)\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. ThusReplacing both the inertia and gravitational restoring moment givesThe same first-moment method applies to a general perforated-disc pendulum. The added disk is attached to the lamina and shares its rotation; treating it as a massless patch or updating only the inertia would omit its restoring torque.

Take the positive coordinate from $O$ toward $S$. The centre of mass of the remaining material has coordinateThus $SX=a+a/6=7a/6$. If $\varphi$ is the small angular displacement from the stable hanging orientation, gravity gives torque $-(3m/4)g(7a/6)\sin \varphi$ about the suspension point. The physical pendulum equation isUsing the small-angle approximation $\sin \varphi \simeq \varphi$ gives simple harmonic motion withBoth the reduced mass and displaced centre of mass matter; changing only the moment of inertia would give an incorrect frequency.

Inertia is resistance to a change of motion. Translational inertia is measured by mass in Newton's second law; rotational inertia about a specified fixed axis is measured by the moment of inertiawhere $r_{\perp }$ is perpendicular distance from that axis. For a thin uniform rod, take axes perpendicular to the rod. With linear mass density $\lambda =m/l$,The second result uses the parallel axis theorem; direct integration over $0\le x\le l$ gives the same value. The axis specification is essential: an ideal thin rod has zero moment of inertia about its own longitudinal axis.

During the short elastic collision, neglect the impulse from gravity. The pivot can exert an external impulse, so total linear momentum of rod plus particle need not be conserved. Its torque about the pivot is zero, so conservation of angular momentum about that point applies. Let $w$ be the particle's signed outgoing horizontal velocity, and $\omega$ the rod's outgoing angular velocity, positive towards the incident motion. ThenSubstituting $\omega =3(v_0-w)/l$ into the kinetic energy equation givesDiscarding the zero-impulse branch $w=v_0$, the actual collision givesThe rod's lower end initially moves forward at $l\omega =3v_0/2$, so the bodies separate. Afterwards the free particle undergoes projectile motion. With the pivot as origin and $z$ downward, its trajectory is $x=(v_0/2)t$, $z=l+g{t}^2/2$, where $t=0$ at the collision. The rod instead swings about the fixed pivot in a vertical plane as a physical pendulum.

The rod's initial rotational kinetic energy is $I_{\mathrm{end}}{\omega }^2/2=3m{v}_0^2/8$. Reaching the horizontal raises its centre of mass by $l/2$, increasing gravitational potential energy by $mgl/2$. Consequently,For the threshold case, measure the rod's angle $\theta$ from the downward vertical and reset $t=0$ at its first horizontal turning point, so $\theta (0)=\pi /2$ and $\dot{\theta }(0)=0$. The restoring torque about the pivot gives the exact equation of motionAt the horizontal, $\ddot{\theta }=-3g/(2l)$, so the rod immediately swings back. Conservation of mechanical energy yieldsOn the initial descent its explicit time dependence is specified by the definite integralIt continues through the vertical to $-\pi /2$, reverses, and repeats without damping. An alternative expression valid throughout the oscillation uses the Jacobi elliptic sine. Put $k=1/\sqrt{2}$, ${\omega }_r=\sqrt{3g/(2l)}$, and let $K(k)$ denote the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. ThenThis is not simple harmonic motion at an amplitude of $\pi /2$. Its oscillation period exceeds its own small-amplitude value $2\pi \sqrt{2l/(3g)}$ by the factor $2K(1/\sqrt{2})/\pi \simeq 1.18034$.

A simple pendulum of length $l/2$ obeys $\ddot{\theta }+(2g/l)\sin \theta =0$. At the same amplitude $\pi /2$, its oscillation period is $T_p=4\sqrt{l/(2g)}K(1/\sqrt{2})$, soThe rod swings more slowly. Its equivalent simple pendulum length is $I_{\mathrm{end}}/[m(l/2)]=2l/3$, not the distance $l/2$ to its centre of mass. The same oscillation period ratio holds in the common small-amplitude limit, but replacing the actual 90-degree motion by that limit would underestimate both oscillation periods.

Axis theorems. The parallel axis theorem stateswhere $I_G$ is the moment of inertia about an axis through the centre of mass, $I_O$ is about a parallel axis, $m$ is the body's total mass, and $d$ is the perpendicular separation of the axes. Expanding $\int [(x-d{)}^2+y^2]dm$ proves the result because $\int xdm=0$ at the centre of mass. The perpendicular axis theorem applies to a planar lamina in the $xy$ plane:All three axes meet at the same point, $x,y$ lie in the lamina and $z$ is normal to it; the identity follows from $x^2+y^2$ being the squared distance to the $z$ axis. It is not a theorem for an arbitrary three-dimensional body.

Cylinder integrals. Put the cylinder's midpoint at $z=0$ and its symmetry axis along $z$. Its uniform mass density is $\rho =m/(\pi r^{2}l)$. The transverse moment of inertia of a uniform solid cylinder about the $x$ axis isEquivalently each thin circular slice has diametral moment of inertia $r^{2}dm/4$, by the perpendicular axis theorem and symmetry, and shifting it by $z$ adds $z^{2}dm$. The parallel axis theorem then gives the transverse end-axis moment of inertia:The axial moment of inertia of a uniform solid cylinder is $I_{\parallel }=m{r}^2/2$. Equating it to $I_{\perp ,G}$ givesHere the source's principal axis means the cylinder's symmetry axis; its transverse centre axes are also principal axes. This equality describes a short cylinder rather than the thin-rod limit.

Hammer dynamics and forces. Treat the compact head as a point mass and neglect its intrinsic moment of inertia. Let $\theta$ be the displacement from downward vertical, and let ${\mathbf{e}}_r$ point along the rod from pivot to head, with ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$ in the direction of increasing $\theta$. DefineThe two external weights $Mg$ and $mg$ act at distances $l$ and $l/2$ from the pivot. The frictionless pivot supplies a reaction $\mathbf{R}$ but no torque about its axis. The total restoring torque and rotational equation of motion areFor completeness, Newton's second law for the centre of mass gives both components of the pivot force:The negative radial component points towards the pivot. These follow from the centre of mass acceleration $-d{\dot{\theta }}^2{\mathbf{e}}_r+d\ddot{\theta }{\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$ and the total weight $m_{T}g(\cos \theta {\mathbf{e}}_r-\sin \theta {\mathbf{e}}_{\theta })$. They specify the external forces even when the oscillation is not small.

With the small-angle approximation, $\sin \theta \simeq \theta$, this is simple harmonic motion. The physical pendulum has small-amplitude oscillation periodFor release from a finite amplitude $0<{\theta }_0<\pi$, conservation of mechanical energy instead gives $\frac{1}{2}I{\dot{\theta }}^2=gA(\cos \theta -\cos {\theta }_0)$. Integrating a quarter-cycle gives the exact oscillation periodwhere $K$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind; $K(0)=\pi /2$ recovers $T_0$.

For $m=M/10$ and $r=l/20$, compare with the simple pendulum value $T_s=2\pi \sqrt{l/g}$:For small oscillations, the hammer's oscillation period is about $0.794\%$ shorter. The extra rod weight adds restoring torque proportionately faster than it adds pivot moment of inertia.

In the small-angle approximation the physical pendulum is a harmonic oscillator with $\omega =2\pi /T$. Its classical energy is $E=m{\omega }^2{A}^2/2=3.55\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{J}$. Equating this to $(n+1/2)\hslash \omega$ givesAn oscillating bob is not a single stationary energy eigenstate. An ideal coherent state has a Poisson distribution of oscillator occupations centred on this mean, with relative spread $1/\sqrt{\bar{n}}$, exceptionally small here. This quantum occupation scale of a classical oscillator fixes the excitation scale without requiring the real, damped clock to be a pure coherent state.

The moment of inertia about an axis is $I=\int r_{\perp }^{2}dm$. The parallel axis theorem states $I=I_{\mathrm{CM}}+M{a}^2$, where a is the perpendicular separation from a parallel axis through the centre of mass, and M is total mass.

Since $\rho =k{r}^2$, the density coefficient has units $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-5}$. The density-power cylindrical moment of inertia follows from cylindrical shells:For an offset pivot, the physical pendulum equation is $(I_{\mathrm{CM}}+M{a}^2)\ddot{\theta }=-Mga\sin \theta$. At small amplitude,For the minimum-period offset of a physical pendulum, minimizing $T^2$ is equivalent to minimizing $a+2R^2/(3a)$. Its derivative vanishes atThe second derivative is positive. The period diverges as $a^{-1/2}$ near zero and grows as $a^{1/2}$ for large offset, giving one minimum. This assumes the stated ideal pivot can pass inside the body; an externally constrained pivot would restrict the allowable a. ^[ref]

Keeping one resonant harmonic and treating orbital eccentricity as fixed reduces mean-motion resonance dynamics to a physical pendulum equation. For the inner first-order term $\mathcal{R}=(G{M}_2/a_2)f(\alpha )e\cos \varphi$, leading Lagrange planetary equations give $\ddot{\varphi }\simeq 3j^2{\mu }_2{n}^2\alpha fe\sin \varphi$. Around its stable phase, the small-amplitude libration frequency is $jn\sqrt{3{\mu }_2\alpha |f|e}$. Evolution of eccentricity, other harmonics, and approach to a separatrix change this approximation.

A uniform rigid rod of length $l$ and mass $M_r$, pivoted at one end with a point mass $m$ at the other, has pivot moment of inertia $I=l^2(m+M_r/3)$. Its gravitational potential energy is $-gl(m+M_r/2)\cos \theta$. The planar Euler-Lagrange equation is $I\ddot{\theta }+gl(m+M_r/2)\sin \theta =0$, giving the displayed small-amplitude oscillation period. The limit $M_r=0$ gives a simple pendulum, whereas $m=0$ gives the uniform-rod physical pendulum. Thinness does not specify a rod's mass, so both contributions must be stated or explicitly neglected.

Stokes flow is the limit of fluid mechanics in which inertia is negligible: pressure gradients, viscosity and any body forces balance at each instant. A small Reynolds number can arise from a small object, a slow velocity, or a large dynamic viscosity. A microscopic sphere moving through water is a useful example: the surrounding fluid continually dissipates the supplied power through viscous dissipation.

The picture is a meridional slice of the three-dimensional axisymmetric flow around a sphere, with the sphere held fixed and the distant fluid moving rightward at speed $U$. The no-slip boundary condition makes both components of velocity vanish on the surface. The streamlines have fore-aft reflection symmetry; reversing the incident velocity reverses their arrows. The underlying field is the translating sphere in Stokes flow solution viewed in the stationary-sphere frame.

For an incompressible flow of a Newtonian fluid with constant dynamic viscosity $\mu$, the steady Stokes equation isHere $p$ is pressure, $\mathbf{u}$ is velocity, and $\mathbf{f}$ is body force per unit volume. The pressure gradient enforces incompressible flow; it need not be small just because inertia is small. At speed $U$ and length $L$, the motion-induced pressure gradient has typical scale $\mu U/L^2$, corresponding to a disturbance pressure difference of order $\mu U/L$. See Shreyas Mandre's fluid dynamics notes, sections 9.1.1–9.1.2.

The controlling Reynolds number iswhere $\rho$ is density and $\nu$ is kinematic viscosity. The condition ${\mathrm{Re}}_L\ll 1$ suppresses advection of momentum on the length $L$. Rapid changes require an additional check of the viscous diffusion time: small Reynolds number alone does not eliminate the time derivative in the Unsteady Stokes equation.

Two rewards of this limit are the exact Stokes's law for the drag on a sphere and kinematic reversibility of Stokes flow. The first predicts settling velocities and connects to the Stokes–Einstein relation; the second explains why a microswimmer needs a nonreciprocal stroke, as expressed by the scallop theorem. Despite viscous dissipation, reversing the driving can retrace the motion: an especially striking consequence of Linearity of Stokes flow.

George Gabriel Stokes obtained the sphere drag and its terminal velocity in his 1851 investigation of how viscosity changes physical pendulum motion. He also used the slow fall of small water droplets to discuss clouds. The paper was read on 9 December 1850; 1851 is its publication date. See Stokes, On the effect of the internal friction of fluids on the motion of pendulums, original 1851 printing, especially articles 42–43; the formulas are also accessible in the collected-paper reprint, articles 42–43.