Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 29 references

The Upward-Driven Disk, a Steadily Forced Chaotic Pendulum

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A steadily driven disk pendulum obeys the diffusionless Lorenz equations, so its flips, periodic orbits, and steady spin are one dynamical system.

desk verdict A genuinely new mechanical analog of the diffusionless Lorenz equations, with an honest but under-quantified experimental match. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17957 v1 pith:OGAYRUKZ submitted 2025-05-23 physics.class-ph nlin.CD

Leo Maas This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.class-phnlin.CD
keywords upward-drivendiskchaoticpendulumdiffusionlessLorenzequationssteadyforcingmechanicalanalogofconvectionnonholonomicrollingconstraintmultiplecoexistingattractorsstate-dependentfriction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

An upward-driven disk is a pendulum whose suspension point is not fixed: two wheels sandwich the disk and steadily push it upward, so the pivot slides along the disk as it swings. The paper argues that this steady drive, with no periodic forcing, is enough to produce damped pendulum motion, chaotic flipping, periodic orbits, and two stable steadily rotating states, depending on drive strength and initial conditions. Its central theoretical claim is that, in the large-drive limit, the center-of-mass equations reduce to a one-parameter diffusionless Lorenz system, so the device is a mechanical analog of the Lorenz convection model. A small vertical damping term must be added to the idealized equations to stabilize the observed rotating states, which the paper reads as evidence of missing friction physics in the rolling contact. If the identification holds, a simple tabletop device exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions, coexisting attractors, and an isochronous clock-like regime under steady forcing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the rolling constraint at the contact point: projecting the constant upward wheel speed $W$ onto radial and azimuthal directions gives $\dot R=W\cos\theta$ and $R\dot\phi=W\sin\theta$, which combine with $\Omega=\dot\theta+\dot\phi$ into $\dot Y=Z\Omega$ and $\dot Z=-Y\Omega+W$. This nonholonomic constraint places the steady forcing in the vertical equation rather than as a torque, which is what makes the system three-dimensional and capable of chaos. The second essential element is the angular-momentum equation in the form $d(I\Omega-WY)/dt=gY-k\Omega$, whose large-drive simplification with constant $I$ and $k$ yields the diffusionless Lorenz equations (14).

What would settle it

In a single high-speed video experiment, track a third marker that records out-of-plane tilt while sampling drive-wheel torque; if the tilt reaches the roughly 10-degree wobble the paper notes while the model assumes zero, or if the drive torque shows no asymmetry as the center crosses the pivot height, the planar DLE reduction and the proposed damping term are not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the planar rolling-and-swinging dynamics of the disk is captured by three equations: the kinematic constraints $\dot Y=Z\Omega$ and $\dot Z=-Y\Omega+W$, and the angular-momentum balance $I\dot\Omega=gY-k\Omega-WZ\Omega$. Under the large-drive assumptions of constant moment of inertia and constant friction, rescaling length and time reduces these to $\dot\omega=y-\omega$, $\dot y=\omega z$, $\dot z=-\omega y+w$, which is identical to a simplified one-parameter version of the Lorenz equations (the diffusionless Lorenz equations). The observed orbits in the vertical plane and in $(J,Y,Z)$ phase space resemble numerical solutions of both the full tuned equations and the diffusionless system, including chaotic, periodic, and steadily rotating motions. The paper additionally shows that the steadily rotating equilibria $\bar\omega=\bar y=\pm\sqrt{w}$, $\bar z=0$ are unstable in the idealized DLE, and that adding a vertical damping term $-Bwz$ to the rolling constraint stabilizes them, leading to the conclusion that some friction-related 'missing physics' must be added to the classical description.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the disk remains in the (y,z)-plane, with its center of mass fixed at X=0 and its orientation given by a single angle; the paper's own inserted note admits a wobble of about 10 degrees occurs in practice, and if that out-of-plane motion is dynamically significant, the planar equations and their reduction to the diffusionless Lorenz system no longer describe the device.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A steady, zero-frequency drive can produce chaotic response, so irregular motion does not require periodic forcing or resonance.
  • At large drive the disk becomes an isochronous pendulum whose period is set internally, which the paper characterizes as a DC-AC converter and a step toward a clock with a well-defined period.
  • Chaotic, periodic, and steadily rotating states can coexist for one and the same drive, with initial conditions selecting which attractor is reached.
  • The stability of the rotating states implies the effective upward drive is weaker when the disk's center is above the pivot than when it is below, a testable friction asymmetry.
  • The full tuned equations with state-dependent friction reproduce the zero-drive damping and the chaotic orbits, supporting the friction model $\max(k_1-k_2|\Omega|,k_0)$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the DLE identification survives quantitative testing, the disk becomes a cheap experimental platform for probing Shil'nikov-type bifurcations and the explicit-map approximations developed for the diffusionless Lorenz equations.
  • The excluded out-of-plane wobble may itself be part of the missing physics: a roughly 10-degree tilt could supply an effective vertical damping that the planar model has to insert by hand, so measuring that tilt may resolve the rotating-state puzzle.
  • The same steady pivot-translation mechanism should generalize to other rolling-contact bodies, so rods, ellipses, or asymmetric disks may realize other members of the Lorenz-family of attractors.
  • Comparing the disk's measured orbits with the DLE's bifurcation diagram would provide a direct, quantitative test of the proposed equivalence in a classroom setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a mechanical device, the 'upward-driven disk', in which a circular disk is sandwiched between two wheels and driven steadily upward at a controllable speed W. The disk's center of mass can hang below, flip above, or rotate around the pivot point. The author derives kinematic constraints and an angular momentum equation from first principles, then simplifies them under assumptions of constant moment of inertia and constant friction to obtain a three-equation system (Eq. 14) that is identified with the diffusionless Lorenz equations (DLE). Experimental orbits at drive speeds 1.4, 3.9, 5.5, and 7.1 cm/s are compared visually with simulations of the full model and of the DLE. A steadily rotating state, observed experimentally, is shown to be unstable in the DLE unless a damping term -B w z is added to the vertical kinematic equation (Eq. 21). The paper argues that this added term represents 'missing physics' related to friction.

Significance. The potential value of this work is substantial: a simple, inexpensive mechanical system that exhibits chaotic, periodic, and steadily rotating regimes and that can be mapped to a one-parameter version of the Lorenz equations would be a valuable pedagogical and conceptual tool. The derivation of Eqs. (7)-(14) is transparent and internally consistent under the stated assumptions, and the practice of calibrating the friction coefficients k0,k1,k2 on zero-drive data and then using them for non-zero drive is methodologically sound. The paper is also admirably candid about its limitations. However, the central quantitative link between the physical experiment and the DLE is not established: the DLE drive values used in Fig. 12 are explicitly selected for visual similarity, and converting them with the paper's own scales gives drive speeds roughly 70% higher than those used in the experiments. In addition, the stabilization of the rotating state relies on an unmeasured, ad hoc damping term that is not inserted into the full physical model. These gaps make the main analogy plausible but not yet convincing.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V C, Fig. 12] The central claim that the upward-driven disk is accurately described by the diffusionless Lorenz equations is not quantitatively supported. The text states that the dimensionless drive values in Fig. 12 were 'chosen for visual similarity'. Using the paper's own scales L=4.6 mm and tau=0.27 s, the values w=3.9, 4.5, 7.1 correspond to W=6.7, 7.8, and 12.3 cm/s, whereas the experiments in Fig. 8 use W=3.9, 5.5, and 7.1 cm/s. This is a systematic offset of roughly 70%. The paper attributes the discrepancy to 'bold assumptions' but never tests whether those assumptions can account for the offset, nor does it report any quantitative comparison such as Lyapunov exponents, invariant measures, or cross-validation. As it stands, the resemblance between Fig. 12 and Fig. 8 is a tuned visual match, not a validated prediction.
  2. [Section V E, Eq. (21)] The stability analysis of the steadily rotating state is built on an ad hoc modification. The term -B w z is added to Eq. (21) without derivation, without measurement of B, and without insertion of an analogous term into the full physical equations (8), (11), and (18). The argument that the credibility of the physical model justifies 'looking for missing physics' is circular in the sense that the new term is introduced solely to match the experimentally observed stability. A convincing treatment would either derive the term from a model of the wheel-disk contact and measure its coefficient, or provide a falsifiable prediction (e.g., a measured dependence of the stability threshold on contact geometry) that can be tested independently.
  3. [Section II B, Note 1] The planar reduction on which the whole model rests is acknowledged to be violated in practice. Note 1 states that the disk exhibits an out-of-plane wobble of about 10 degrees, but the theory assumes X=0 and a single orientation angle phi. Since the kinematic constraints (7)-(8), the angular momentum balance (11), and the reduction to the DLE (14) all depend on this planar assumption, a 10-degree wobble is not necessarily negligible. The paper should either quantify the effect of the wobble on the derived equations or present evidence that it does not affect the conclusions; this could also be relevant to the drive-offset problem in Section V C.
  4. [Sections III C and V B] The experimental orbits are labeled 'chaotic' based on visual irregularity, but no quantitative chaos diagnostic is provided. No Lyapunov exponent, correlation dimension, or surrogate/noise-test is reported for the experimental time series. This matters because the paper's comparison with the DLE is the main evidence for chaos, and a nonchaotic model driven by noise can produce aperiodic-looking transients. A simple quantitative check (e.g., largest Lyapunov exponent from the Y(t) or Z(t) signal, or a comparison with the DLE's bifurcation diagram) would substantially strengthen the central claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [References, Note 1] Note 1 appears in the reference list as 'Note1 (????)' with a placeholder year; it should be formatted as a proper footnote or a complete reference entry.
  2. [Section II C] The image-analysis procedure is described but no estimate of the measurement error is given. Since blurring during rapid motion is mentioned in Fig. 3b, a quantitative uncertainty bound for the center-of-mass coordinates would help assess the significance of the experimental-model comparison.
  3. [Section IV C] The statement that Eqs. (14) are 'identical to a simplified, one-parameter version of the celebrated Lorenz equations' would be easier to verify if the standard DLE form (e.g., X' = sigma(Y-X), Y' = -XZ, Z' = XY - rho Z, or the diffusionless limit) were written explicitly and the mapping to (omega,y,z) given.
  4. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption does not state the initial conditions used for the DLE orbits in Fig. 12; please specify them, as the coexisting periodic and chaotic states depend on initial conditions.
  5. [Section V A] The phrase 'see equation (17) below' is confusing because Eq. (17) already appears in Section IV C; the cross-reference should be corrected.
  6. [Notation] The symbol R is used both for the disk radius (8 cm) and for the instantaneous distance |OC| in Eq. (1). Although the two uses are distinguished in context, this is a recurring source of potential confusion; a separate symbol for the instantaneous radius (e.g., r(T)) would improve readability.
  7. [Section V E] The units of k0, k1, and k2 in Eq. (18) are not all stated in one place; please add a sentence listing k0 (m^2/s), k1 (m^2/s), and k2 (m^2) so that the dimensional consistency of k1 - k2|Omega| is explicit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The DLE derivation is mathematically self-contained, but the DLE drive parameter in Fig. 12 is tuned for visual similarity, so the experimental support for the Lorenz analogy is partly a fit rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V C, Figure 12 (DLE comparison)]
    "However, the values of the drive in the DLE were chosen for visual similarity in Figure 12. When converted to dimensional values, W=wL/τ, these lead to 6.7, 7.8 and 12.3 cm/s, respectively. These are clearly higher than the drives used in the experiments in Figure 8, no doubt related to the bold assumptions that went into the reduction of the actual equations to the DLE."

    The DLE comparison is not a parameter-free prediction: the dimensionless drive w is not obtained from the measured physical drive through the quoted scales L=4.6 mm and τ=0.27 s (which would give w≈2.3, 3.2, 4.2 for W=3.9, 5.5, 7.1 cm/s), but is instead set to w=3.9, 4.5, 7.1 to make the simulated orbits resemble the observed ones. The visual agreement between Fig. 12 and Figs. 8/11 is therefore manufactured in the drive parameter. Because this tuned agreement is then used to support the claim that the disk represents a mechanical analog of the Lorenz equations, the empirical validation of the DLE reduction is partly circular; the mathematical identity of Eq. (14) with the DLE remains independent.

full rationale

The core derivation, Eqs. (7)-(14), is self-contained: the kinematic no-slip constraints and the angular-momentum balance are written down from mechanics, and the reduction to the dimensionless system (14) uses stated scaling assumptions. The identification of (14) with a one-parameter diffusionless Lorenz system is a mathematical statement that does not depend on the experimental data. The friction coefficients k0, k1, k2 are fitted to the zero-drive experiment and then applied to non-zero drives; this is a legitimate calibration-to-prediction procedure, and the paper does not disguise it. The main circularity-adjacent step is the DLE drive w in Fig. 12, explicitly chosen for visual similarity, which means the qualitative agreement with the laboratory orbits is partly a curve fit; however, the paper admits this and attributes the offset to the bold simplifications. The added damping term -B w z in Eq. (21) is also a free ansatz introduced specifically to stabilize the observed rotating states, but it is presented as a hypothesis about missing physics, not as a derivation, so it does not by itself create a circular claim. Note 1's admitted ~10-degree out-of-plane wobble is an acknowledged modeling limitation, not a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation chain or uniqueness argument is present; the DLE results cited from prior work by the author are external mathematical facts that the experiments independently address. Overall, the central mathematical claim is independent, but the experimental validation of the Lorenz analogy is partly fitted, giving a moderate score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard Newtonian mechanics plus several idealizations: planarity, no-slip constraint, a fitted friction law, and the approximate constancy of inertia and friction. The ad hoc vertical damping term B is an additional free component with no direct measurement. No new physical entities or particles are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • k0 = 0.012 m^2/s
    Friction coefficient at low angular velocity, fitted to zero-drive decay data.
  • k1 = 0.103 m^2/s
    Friction coefficient upper bound at zero angular velocity, fitted to zero-drive data.
  • k2 = 0.055 m^2
    Rate at which friction coefficient decreases with |Omega|, fitted to zero-drive data.
  • B = 0.2
    Damping coefficient for the added vertical constraint term, chosen ad hoc to make steadily rotating states stable.
  • w (DLE drive in Fig. 12) = 3.9, 4.5, 7.1
    Dimensionless drive values in the DLE plots are 'chosen for visual similarity' with experiments, as admitted in the text.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The disk remains in-plane (X=0, no wobble).
    Reduces the degrees of freedom to Y, Z, and one orientation angle. The paper's Note 1 says a wobble of about 10 degrees occurs, ignored in the model.
  • domain assumption No-slip rolling constraint at the wheel-disk contact, giving Eq. (7).
    Used to derive the kinematic equations dR/dt = W cos(theta) and R dphi/dt = W sin(theta). Slipping during rotation is acknowledged in Experiment section but not incorporated.
  • domain assumption Frictional torque is -k(Omega) Omega with k given by Eq. (18).
    The state-dependent friction law is an empirical fit, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption Moment of inertia I can be approximated as constant I_C and friction coefficient k as constant k0 for the DLE reduction.
    The paper states these assumptions 'are not necessarily respected in the physical experiments', yet uses the simplified DLE for comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The added damping term -B w z in Eq. (21) represents missing physics.
    This term is introduced solely to stabilize the observed rotating states; its physical origin is speculative and presented as a hypothesis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Upward-Driven Disk, a Steadily Forced Chaotic Pendulum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OGAYRUKZ

@misc{pith2026250517957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Upward-Driven Disk, a Steadily Forced Chaotic Pendulum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OGAYRUKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17957}
}
read the original abstract

An "upward-driven disk" is a novel mechanical device built from LEGO parts. A circular disk is suspended from the point where it is sandwiched between two wheels, making it free to oscillate as a pendulum, but the location of that suspension point on the disk changes with time due to a steady upward driving force applied by rotation of one of the wheels. The pendulum can dynamically flip between hanging downward and being inverted. Depending on the upward drive and the initial conditions, the disk can exhibit steady rotation, periodic motion, or chaotic motion (and some of these for the same drive). This device serves as an easy-to-visualize analog of chaotic phenomena in other physical systems. Most notably, the upward driven disk mimics a simplified version of the celebrated Lorenz equations that are frequently used to describe fluid convection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17957 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) (a) Side view and (b) front view of the upward-driven disk. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) Side view of an upward-driven, rotating disk. The disk of radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The disk’s center-of-mass (a) lateral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) The disk’s center-of-mass (a) lateral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The disk’s (a) angular momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) The disk’s (a) angle Θ = [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The disk’s center-of-mass coordinates in the vertical plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online) In the absence of a drive force ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Color online) (a) Orbit of the disk’s center C in the vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Orbits of the disk’s center C in the vertical plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Numerically computed orbits of the DLE (14) showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Phase space orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Phase space orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Real (solid) and imaginary (dashed) parts of eigenvalues of matrix linearized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: (Color online) (a) Real (solid) and imaginary (dashed) parts of eigenvalues of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aref, H., Hutzler, S., and Weaire, D. (2007). Toying with physics. Europhysics News , 38 (3), 23--26

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    Baker, G. L. and Blackburn, J. A. (2008). The pendulum: a case study in physics . OUP Oxford

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    Besson, U., Borghi, L., De Ambrosis, A., and Mascheretti, P. (2007). How to teach friction: Experiments and models. American Journal of Physics , 75 (12), 1106--1113

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    A., Vik, S., Wu, B., and Smith, H

    Blackburn, J. A., Vik, S., Wu, B., and Smith, H. (1989). Driven pendulum for studying chaos. Review of scientific instruments , 60 (3), 422--426

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Boucher, R. A. (2017). The pendulum and standard measures in the ancient world. CAL LAB: The international journal of metrology , 24 (1), 36--43

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    A., Levinson, N., and Teichmann, T

    Coddington, E. A., Levinson, N., and Teichmann, T. (1956). Theory of ordinary differential equations

    work page 1956

  7. [7]

    Cross, R. (2005). Increase in friction force with sliding speed. American journal of physics , 73 (9), 812--816

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Cross, R. (2016). Coulomb's law for rolling friction. American Journal of Physics , 84 (3), 221--230

    work page 2016

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Glendinning, P. (2020). Adaptive resonance and pumping a swing. European Journal of Physics , 41 (2), 025006

    2020

  2. [10]

    G \"u \'e mez, J., Fiolhais, C., and Fiolhais, M. (2009). Toys in physics lectures and demonstrations?a brief review. Physics education , 44 (1), 53

    2009

  3. [11]

    and Spencer, N

    H \"a hner, G. and Spencer, N. (1998). Rubbing and scrubbing. Physics Today , 51 (9), 22--27

    1998

  4. [12]

    Huygens, C. (1986). The pendulum clock (horologium oscillatorium). Trans RJ Blackwell, The Iowa State University Press, Ames

    1986

  5. [13]

    Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences , 20 (2), 130--141

    1963

  6. [14]

    Maas, L. R. (1997). On the nonlinear helmholtz response of almost-enclosed tidal basins with sloping bottoms. Journal of fluid mechanics , 349 , 361--380

    1997

  7. [15]

    Maas, L. R. (2004). Theory of basin scale dynamics of a stratified rotating fluid. Surveys in geophysics , 25 , 249--279

    2004

  8. [16]

    Maas, L. R. M. (1994). A simple model for the three-dimensional, thermally and wind-driven ocean circulation. Tellus A , 46 (5), 671--680

    1994

  9. [17]

    Malkus, W. V. R. (1972). Non-periodic convection at high and low prandtl number. Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Liege , 4 (6), 125--128

    1972

  10. [18]

    Matson, L. E. (2007). The malkus--lorenz water wheel revisited. American Journal of Physics , 75 (12), 1114--1122

    2007

  11. [19]

    This assumption is in practice not always justified

    Note1 (????). This assumption is in practice not always justified. Experimentally, at times some slight wobble (of about 10 degrees) takes place, but this will be ignored in the theoretical model, discussed in section sec4

  12. [20]

    Pennestr \` , E., Rossi, V., Salvini, P., and Valentini, P. P. (2016). Review and comparison of dry friction force models. Nonlinear dynamics , 83 , 1785--1801

    2016

  13. [21]

    Quiroga, G. D. and Ospina-Henao, P. A. (2017). Dynamics of damped oscillations: physical pendulum. European Journal of Physics , 38 (6), 065005

    2017

  14. [22]

    Squire, P. T. (1986). Pendulum damping. American Journal of Physics , 54 (11), 984--991

    1986

  15. [23]

    Strogatz, S. H. (2001). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering (studies in nonlinearity) , volume 1. Westview press

    2001

  16. [24]

    Strogatz, S. H. (2018). Nonlinear dynamics and chaos with student solutions manual: With applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering . CRC press

    2018

  17. [25]

    Taylor, J. R. (2005). Classical mechanics . University science book

    2005

  18. [26]

    Tea, P. L. and Falk, H. (1968). Pumping on a swing. American Journal of Physics , 36 (12), 1165--1166

    1968

  19. [27]

    Valani, R. N. (2024). Infinite-memory classical wave-particle entities, attractor-driven active particles, and the diffusionless lorenz equations. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science , 34 (1)

    2024

  20. [28]

    and Maas, L

    van der Schrier, G. and Maas, L. R. M. (2000). The diffusionless Lorenz equations; Shil'nikov bifurcations and reduction to an explicit map . Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 141 (1-2), 19--36

    2000

  21. [29]

    Wei, Z., Wang, R., and Liu, A. (2014). A new finding of the existence of hidden hyperchaotic attractors with no equilibria. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation , 100 , 13--23

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.