Physical Pendulum

[@jeremywright9511]

You are simply the best at explaining this subject matter I have found on youtube. So direct, intelligent, and non-condescending.

[@MS-sv1tr]

Well-explained. I had a dream I ran into a physics professor carrying a demonstration. It was a wooden rectangle, maybe 2'x4', with several simple pendulums of different lengths and angles drawn on it, all "hanging" from the pivot point of the wooden block. I think the idea was to find the equation of motion for any of those simple pendulums. I realized I didn't know how to solve it so I googled it when I woke up. So all you would need to do is solve the equation of motion for the center of mass, and then make a position substitution to find it for any given point in the object. Thanks

[@arjeshkarmacharya9303]

Thank you for this 🙏🏼🙏🏼

[@federicoguglielmotti3988]

great video! you made it so straightforward.

[@muhammadmushtaq1995]

Outstanding 💞💞💞💞💞

[@HadikhanKhan-fo3yh]

Really amazing 😌

[@surendrakverma555]

Very good 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@AbrahamYohannes-mo4xj]

Why not we use parallel axis therom? In the place of inertia

[@markkennedy9767]

Hi thank you for this. You might be able to help me. With the physical pendulum I understand that an equation relating torque to angular acceleration times the moment of inertia around the pivot (I_a), is the way to solve it: mlgphi+(I_a)phi double dot (where we use the usual small angle approximation sin(phi) as phi). But could you tell me why a simple equation using Newton's second law on the centre of mass along the phi hat direction of the circular arc through the centre of mass doesn't work. In other words: mgphi+mphi double dot=0. The reason I ask is translational motion for an extended body can be described using Newton's second law as long as we use the mass m and the centre of mass. Then shouldn't the net force applied at every instant through the centre of mass act in the phi hat direction and be equal to the mass times the acceleration in the phi hat direction. I'm obviously overlooking something as the physical pendulum isn't reducible to the simple pendulum. Can you shed light on this. I would appreciate any help. Thanks.

[@mustaphachemchem4856]

for my reference, thank you

[@MS-ld3jn]

Awesome! Would it be possible to make a video for a physical pendulum with damping

[@elahek4566]

Thank you so much

[@Mar-eg3lk]

wow thanks!!!! Please make more videos!

[@mrfloppydonkey7287]

what if the angle is not small, thus we cannot use the sma?

[@Roe124]

How did you go from the second derivative to tetha(t) ?

[@atharvaanand4176]

general solution to the diffrential equation

[@mezzanine74]

Waw

[@makoprofesyonel]

Adamsın lan sen