News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A pendulum theorem by Jun8 on Saturday November 12, 2016 @09:01PM (#12941425)
Hmm, this reminded me of an empirical discovery I made: When walking with an open coffee cup at hand oscillating your hand vertically in random fashion greatly reduces the coffee resonance and the sloshing effect.

This problem has been investigated before (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/physics-spilled-coffe...) but AFAIK the above solution has not been proposed. I wonder if the theorem given can help motivate this finding?

Re:A pendulum theorem by adrianN on Sunday November 13, 2016 @03:23AM (#12942418)
Walk without rythm and we won't spill the coffee.
Re:A pendulum theorem by gaze on Sunday November 13, 2016 @08:39AM (#12943248)
This is a funny example of spread spectrum modulation. You're decreasing the energy at the frequency of the sloshing mode by modulating it with random noise.
Re:A pendulum theorem by selimthegrim on Saturday November 12, 2016 @07:39PM (#12941114)
This isn't original to Acheson - the single pendulum case is widely known as the Kapitza pendulum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapitza%27s_pendulum

If you speak Russian the following video with V.I. Arnold is nice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBSLK3Jbd2I

Re:A pendulum theorem by ars on Saturday November 12, 2016 @08:47PM (#12941373)
Re:A pendulum theorem by jacobolus on Sunday November 13, 2016 @04:48AM (#12942583)
The paper says in its first sentence “Stephenson (1908a, b) showed that it is possible ... He confirmed his theoretical predictions by a practical demonstration ...”
Re:A pendulum theorem by selimthegrim on Sunday November 13, 2016 @02:21PM (#12945074)
His derivation isn't nearly as complete as Kapitza's, though.
Re:A pendulum theorem by Animats on Sunday November 13, 2016 @03:41AM (#12942455)
When that was discovered it was a shock to the controls community. Inverted pendulum stabilization was long thought to require active control.

Here's a video demonstrating passive stabilization.[1] It's so simple it's embarrassing.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwGAzy0noU0

Re:A pendulum theorem by idlewords on Saturday November 12, 2016 @08:48PM (#12941376)
The last line of the paper mentions seeing a triple inverted pendulum recover from even very severe perturbations and go back to vertical. I would love to see a video of this stuff!
Re:A pendulum theorem by dools on Saturday November 12, 2016 @09:13PM (#12941465)
This is a different control mechanism but it's still a cool video :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyN-CRNrb3E

Re:A pendulum theorem by curiousgal on Sunday November 13, 2016 @02:53AM (#12942350)
Came across this video after watching that, somehow related but equally amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt-KLtkDlh8
Re:A pendulum theorem by aji on Saturday November 12, 2016 @10:02PM (#12941602)
this one was linked by ars elsewhere in the comments here. references the paper as well. very cool! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnn21smGVrQ
Re:A pendulum theorem by 1jFDS on Sunday November 13, 2016 @07:09AM (#12942959)
Sane link:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205...

I don't understand how people put up with a wobbling "Click here to see more" on fermatslibrary.com.

What is next? Back to marquee?

Re:A pendulum theorem by akssri on Sunday November 13, 2016 @04:45AM (#12942578)
Mark Levi has written about these things on SIAM and has a nice video up on,

http://www.personal.psu.edu/mxl48/Inverted_Pendulum.html

I think they've also shown that this is robustly stable for a particular family.

Re:A pendulum theorem by elcritch on Sunday November 13, 2016 @12:56AM (#12942080)
Makes me think about drones in particular. If you can control an inverted n-ary pendulum then controlling inverted thrust should be a straightforward extension.