Hi Luke!
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Luke wrote:
> This might be a bit off topic but I think there are enough physicists
> on the list who would be interested winning in a free copy of a new
> exercise book for the Feynman Lectures on Physics:
>
> http://feynmanlectures.info/announcement.ht
Ondrej,
Great comments! How are you!? We need to get a beer next time you
are coming through -- do you have a regular schedule, maybe Google
Calendar that we can share?
> 1) How did you create the drawing in the pdf?
I used TikZ. I looked into PStricks, which is very powerful, but it
seems li
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:00 AM, Luke wrote:
> Ondrej,
> Great comments! How are you!? We need to get a beer next time you
> are coming through -- do you have a regular schedule, maybe Google
> Calendar that we can share?
>
>> 1) How did you create the drawing in the pdf?
> I used TikZ. I loo
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Luke wrote:
> Ondrej,
> Great comments! How are you!? We need to get a beer next time you
> are coming through -- do you have a regular schedule, maybe Google
> Calendar that we can share?
Absolutely. I don't go around regularly, but I do from time to time.
La
> Can you post the TikZ source? I like it a lot.
I just pushed everything to github:
https://github.com/hazelnusse/FLP_Exercise
> If you have time, can you create an example for pydy for it? I think
> it's simple, but not *so* simple, and it would serve
> as a nice example for pydy.
Recently I p
I found an error in my calculations, I have corrected it in the most
recent commit on the github page.
~Luke
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, s
Alan,
Looks good, thanks. Yeah, Lagrange's method is the way to go on
this problem, the reason I chose to do F=ma directly was purely
because the problem is targeted towards a freshman audience and they
won't be familiar with that approach at this point in their careers.
You are correct that th
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Luke wrote:
> Alan,
> Looks good, thanks. Yeah, Lagrange's method is the way to go on
> this problem, the reason I chose to do F=ma directly was purely
> because the problem is targeted towards a freshman audience and they
> won't be familiar with that approach a
Alan,
What approach do you take when you are interested in determining
forces of constraint? Using Lagrange's method to obtain the equations
of motion is convenient, but I've never explored constraint forces in
problems that I've solved using Lagrange's method. Do you have to use
Lagrange multi
On 11/15/2011 10:39 PM, Luke wrote:
Alan,
What approach do you take when you are interested in determining
forces of constraint? Using Lagrange's method to obtain the equations
of motion is convenient, but I've never explored constraint forces in
problems that I've solved using Lagrange's met
> Are you asking, for example, how to calculate the tension in the pendulum
> arm
> using the Lagrangian method?
Yes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from thi
I thought the general idea of the problem was to not use differential
equations and calculus? (or "other fancy mathematical tricks"). I feel like
that is the challenge of the problem...
-Hans
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Luke wrote:
> > Are you asking, for example, how to calculate the ten
> I thought the general idea of the problem was to not use differential
> equations and calculus? (or "other fancy mathematical tricks"). I feel like
> that is the challenge of the problem...
Yes. I just don't know how to separate Newtonian mechanics from
differential equations so I didn't.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke wrote:
>> I thought the general idea of the problem was to not use differential
>> equations and calculus? (or "other fancy mathematical tricks"). I feel like
>> that is the challenge of the problem...
>
> Yes. I just don't know how to separate Newtonian mech
I think the 2*pi is essential, so without it, I'm not sure.
~Luke
On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke wrote:
>>> I thought the general idea of the problem was to not use differential
>>> equations and calculus? (or "other fancy mathematical
But the 2*pi terms all cancel in your solution.
Aaron Meurer
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Luke Peterson wrote:
> I think the 2*pi is essential, so without it, I'm not sure.
>
> ~Luke
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Ondřej Čertík wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Luke wrote:
>>
Do you mean in my solution that involves differential equations?
I think this dimensional analysis approach may have merit, I just need
to see all the steps and make sure they can all be justified without
referencing a differential equation.
~Luke
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Aaron Meurer
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Luke wrote:
> Do you mean in my solution that involves differential equations?
Yes (assumedly the solution will be the same no matter what method you
use to derive it, so long as you always make the "small angles"
approximation).
>
> I think this dimensional ana
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Aaron Meurer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Luke wrote:
>> Do you mean in my solution that involves differential equations?
>
> Yes (assumedly the solution will be the same no matter what method you
> use to derive it, so long as you always make the "
> Attached pdf of answer (see last section of attachment)!
Your image on the last page is the geometrical solution that I had in mind.
Aaron Meurer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroup
A very similar solution was proposed on the forum and rejected because
he made use of the assumption of \omega_n^2 = sqrt(g/l). Yours
doesn't make explicit use of that assumption, so perhaps they would
find it acceptable. I personally would not.
The problem I have with your first assumption is t
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Luke wrote:
> A very similar solution was proposed on the forum and rejected because
> he made use of the assumption of \omega_n^2 = sqrt(g/l).
I meant \omega_n^2 = g/l
~Luke
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy"
On 11/16/2011 04:57 PM, Luke wrote:
A very similar solution was proposed on the forum and rejected because
he made use of the assumption of \omega_n^2 = sqrt(g/l). Yours
doesn't make explicit use of that assumption, so perhaps they would
find it acceptable. I personally would not.
The problem
23 matches
Mail list logo
