Talk:Conical pendulum

Please edit[edit]

Please edit my page as frequen as you want.
[User:Theshermanato82, 15:23, 22 December 2005‎]

In the meanwhile it is apparent that pages do not 'belong' to any one Editor. However, the exhortation to be bold is still in keeping with Wikipedia's philosophy.

—DIV (1.145.91.247 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Support good-faith IP editors: insist that Wikipedia's administrators adhere to Wikipedia's own policies on keeping range-blocks as a last resort, with minimal breadth and duration, in order to reduce adverse collateral effects; support more precisely targeted restrictions such as protecting only articles themselves, not associated Talk pages, or presenting pages as semi-protected, or blocking only mobile edits when accessed from designated IP ranges.

Beneficial to have a drawing[edit]

It would be beneficial to have a drawing of a conical pendulum. Snowman 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aka spherical pendulum?[edit]

Is this the same as spherical pendulum? 24.241.226.16 07:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say both the normal back-and-forth pendulum and conical pendulum are special cases of a spherical pendulum. That is, the behaviors of those special cases can be explained by the generalized spherical pendulum as an idealized mathematical model, if you ignore real-world stuff like friction and the elasticity of a suspending string. CosineKitty (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change reference/footnote style?[edit]

The Reference section contains a comment specifying the {{note}} template as the format for the article's inline footnotes and references. This is a little out of date and has been superseded in most articles by the <ref> tag. This has all the advantages of the template but is much easier to use since only one entry has to be made, and the list of references is automatically generated. How about changing the citation style to the <ref> tag? Or is there an advantage to the {{note}} template that I don't know about? Comments? --Chetvorno^TALK 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed diagram and revision of variable name[edit]

As proposed here, I would like to add a diagram and rename the variable l to L. Any comments or feedback? Thanks! CosineKitty (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both changes look good to me. The article really needed a diagram, good work. -Chetvorno^TALK 07:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chetvorno. I went ahead and reworked the mathematical derivation. I hope it is a lot easier to follow. I tried to simplify the flow of the math to proceed more directly to the solution, while also explaining the steps better. CosineKitty (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement, I think that's exactly what the derivation needed. The previous result, the equation for h, was a side issue, the important result is the period equation. You made the progression of steps really clear, too. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]