Talk:Anharmonicity

"Large-angle pendulum" No pendulum (phase space with \theta and \dot{\theta}) can go chaotic by Poincare-Bendixon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.87.57.32 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) DPHutchins (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC) edited

I took out the thing about chaotic pendulum motion. Someone got "large angle pendulum" confused with "double jointed pendulum". Norbornene (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Potential energy from period of oscillations" In this section of the article they used a formula that included an unspecified variable, m , under the first radical. Also, U(x) , the well notation, has been changed to (x)U in the equation, in which, x , implies a distance, possibly the distance of the period --> . <-- The Header for this section mentions Potential Energy, yet clearly the period of oscillation is T, E is energy, and 2pi is a constant, so where did the "m" come from and what does the "x" imply?

DPHutchins (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right that that section is too terse and unclear. I fixed the inconsistent function notation, but the mathematical content itself is beyond me to fix. Norbornene (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anharmonicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613171204/http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~elmer/pendulum/nonres.htm to http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~elmer/pendulum/nonres.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Imprecise Language

Article says:

"When x is too positive or too negative, gravity pushes it back towards its lowest point."

A non-zero value can either be positive or negative, it's a binary property. Saying x can be "too positive" is nonsense. Also gravity doesn't push anything. Gravity causes the weight of the pendulum to be pulled towards earth and the combination with the centripetal force from the string results in the "corrective" force that affects the pendulum.

It should be rewritten to something like:

"For example, x may represent the displacement of a pendulum from its resting position x=0. As the absolute value of x increases, so does the restoring force acting on the pendulums weight that pushes it back towards its resting position." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.244.20 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

All oscillating systems are more or less anharmonic.

My edit has been removed despite being valid and of scientific evidence. The justification wasn't understandable in any form because it hasn't to do anything with a point of view. 178.10.96.237 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's true in reality that any system which oscillates linearly becomes nonlinear at high amplitudes. I would call this the nonlinear regime, where force is nonlinearity with respect to position, and I honestly can't tell how this is different from "anharmonicity". I guess "nonlinear" describes the force function whereas "anharmonic" describes the spectral behavior. So the 2 words describe the same thing from different perspectives.98.156.185.48 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no description on how such systems exactly behave, like chaos for example.

Aren't these systems creating intermdoulation and harmonics? 88.72.82.12 (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)