- #36
- 8,032
- 869
oddjobmj said:Thanks again.
Same deal, actually. The constants have the same form and I'd be willing to bet the two solutions I found are equivalent.
I'm not sure how you got rid of m, t, and w, though. To get rid of w I have to substitute back in the imaginary portion of the root. If you were able to get rid of t and m I will walk back through the problem and type it out if necessary.
It is still a huge mess after the simplification. I don't think that is an issue, though. The graph doesn't have to be quantitatively correct. It just has to qualitatively represent the behavior this arrangement would exhibit. The plot of the final function looks like I would expect it to if I strategically pick values for the variables.
Sorry, I meant A and B (his C1 and C2) contain only F0, q, m and a. Certainly, you still wind up with m, t and w as part of the complete x(t).
Note that his w is not the natural frequency w0, it's w0√(1-ζ2)
where ζ is the damping coefficient = β/w0.
Anyway, I have no reason to think your sol'n isn't right. As I warned you long ago, this thing is a mess!
BTW I would combine the sin and cos terms into a sin(wt + ψ) term. Might make the graphing easier.