Yesterday, while thinking about Dzhanibekov effect, gyroscopes and elliptic functions, I checked my mailbox and read the following email from one of the readers:

Dear Ark,

Can you write about Kozyriev mirrors in your future posts? Rossiya 1 did a documentary awhile ago still available here:

Kozyrev Mirrors_Breakthrough into the Future– (english subtitles)

What are your thoughts of what might be going on in these experiments? Do the Kozyriev mirror experiments have to do with time traveling and accessing the information field? Why a “concave” mirror or cylinder? What is special about this shape and the materials used? Would it be detrimental for people to experiment with these mirrors? Any scientific or informal thoughts on this subject will be most welcomed.

The truth is:** in my imagination gyroscopes and Kozyrev’s mirrors are completely different subjects**. But then I asked myself: **or aren’t they?**

After small search I have downloaded from the Internet THE SCIENCE OF TORSION, GYROSCOPES AND PROPULSION. It starts with

“

SOMETHING IS MISSING IN THE SCIENCE OF SPINNING SYSTEMS”

My critical article on Shipov’s “4D gyroscopes” is mentioned there, but the works and ideas of Kozyrev are also mentioned.

Wikipedia article on Kozyrev with his mirrors quotes “**Akimov, A.E., Shipov, G. I., Torsion fields and their experimental manifestations, 1996**” – the subject closely related to the “unconventional physics” of spinning objects. So, perhaps **at some deeper level the two subjects are closely related**? With this in mind I will have to read what is available about research done with Kozyrev’s mirrors. At present I know next to nothing, and what I once knew I have mostly forgotten. But I will keep it in mind, study, and in the future return the strange properties of space, vacuum, structured aether and Kozyrev mirrors. For now, however, I need to finish what I have started – nonlinear mathematical pendulum. Today we will discuss the expressions for its period.

**Pendulum period: **

In the previous post Rescaled Jacobi amplitude – general solution for the mathematical pendulum, we have derived a general formula for time evolution of a nonlinear mathematical pendulum

(1)

where is the ratio of maximal potential energy to maximal kinetic energy, and where is the gravitational acceleration, and is the length of the pendulum.

The inequality means that the pendulum has sufficient kinetic energy to swing full circles. Lets us recall the graph of the amplitude function

For the value of grows from left to right. That is clear: the angle constantly increases. But when it riches the pendulum, in fact makes a full circle. Therefore the period of our pendulum is calculated from the formula

(2)

We recall from Jacobi amplitude- realism or cubism that is the inverse function of the incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind given by (see also Wikipedia: Elliptic integral)

(3)

Therefore Eq. (2) is equivalent to

The function under integral in Eq. (3) has the symmetry property that tells us that The value is usually given the name: **the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and it is often denoted with the capital letter ** Thus we obtain:

(4)

The case of is uninteresting, as it means either the pendulum of zero potential, or of infinite kinetic energy. In the case of we have, in fact, two possible solutions. One is with constant, That is very unstable, like a pencil that stands on its tip. There is also second solution, one given by our formula with The motion is non-periodic, there is just one flip all around the circle, and it takes infinite time.

**Pendulum period: **

For we have to return to the definition of the amplitude function – Eqs (1),(2) in Jacobi elliptic cn and dn:

(5)

We can see from the graph above that for the function oscillates periodically. Since, taking into account simplification of multiplying and dividing by , we get

it follows that the period of is the same as the period of the function and it is the same as the period of the function

It is therefore given by the formula

therefore

For very small oscillation (very small kinetic energies) is very large and is close to zero. The integrand in the definition of can be replaced by the constant , so that, for very large , Therefore can be replaced by and Eq. (6) reduces to

(7)

This is the standard formula for the linear pendulum with small oscillation. It was known to Galileo.

Erratum

myself: or are they? ->

myself: or aren’t they?

mitrrors ->

mirrors

Why is/isn’t there 2 in (2)?

There was no 2 because I have forgotten. And I have neglected comparing with the results of others.

Fixed. Thanks!

“The function under integral in Eq. (3) is periodic, with the period “That’s rather not true.

Thanks. Fixed.

(4) and (6) should be the same for k=m=1, shouldn’t they?

(They are not now.)

They are the same. 2 times infinity is the same as 4 times infinity.

Exercise: Show that for

where is the maximum of

Exercise solved:

For

we have

so

Clever. I did not think about this way. I was thinking about using Fig. 5.1 Simple pendulum from the previous post and just definitions . You can see there that

Thus and so from we get

Well, I wanted to use what you teached me (and not the highschool knowledge).

Does anyone have access to Maple? If so could you test post a few lines of Latex produced by it. I can’t get Latex produced by Maple to work here.It works on the http://quicklatex.com/ site reasonably ok. Feel dead in the water at present.

Yes, you did type letexpage in the square brackets. But then you typed your latex formula without dolar signs or without begin end display command, like that:

{\omega_{{0}}}^{2}={\frac {g}{l}}

But if you put it between dollars you get

Thank you Ark.

This is the solution I obtained

I am posting the worksheet on mapleprimes as I have some Maple related questions, if you would like to see it

Ronan,

I took your comment:

\int ^{\Theta \left( t \right) }\!{\frac {1}{\sqrt {2\,{\omega_{{0}}}^

{2}\cos \left( {\it \_a} \right) +{\it \_C1}}}}{d{\it \_a}}-t-{\it

\_C2}=0

and bracketed it with names: “latex” and “/latex”, each bracketed with brackets,

and I got:

(Do not pay attention to WYSIWYG below comment window because it is shit.)

Thank you Bjab.

I better study up on when to use the $ $ and “latex” and “/latex”, etc.

“They are the same. 2 times infinity is the same as 4 times infinity”Like one infinite swing (from left to right) is the same as two infinte swings (from left to right and then back).

Yes, I think it is a very good observation.