How do nodes on a string produce tension if they are stationary?

AI Thread Summary
Nodes on a string remain stationary despite the presence of tension because they are points where two waves cancel each other out, creating a standing wave. The tension in the string is a result of electrostatic forces between particles, which remain under tension even when oscillating. While energy does not pass through the nodes, it flows past them as waves travel in both directions, contributing to the overall oscillation. The tension is consistent in magnitude along the string but varies in direction, allowing for the transmission of forces. Thus, even stationary nodes play a crucial role in the dynamics of a vibrating string.
bob900
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
The vibration in a string is caused by the tension force on point masses inside the string :

23ih4wg.png


The tension force itself results from "the net electrostatic attraction between the particles in a solid when it is deformed so that the particles are further apart from each other than when at equilibrium" (source).

But a node in the string (when two waves cancel each other) is stationary. To transmit movement to string masses on either side of the node, shouldn't the node have to move (deform) to produce tension?

For example, in the following picture

2qsxao3.png


At node B, the red wave traveling to the right, has to create tension to transmit its upward to the string mass immediately to the right of B. Analogously, the green wave has to create tension to transmit its downward movement to the string mass on the left of B. But if the mass element at B itself does not move, how are these tension forces produced?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The rope has to have some tension before you start waggling it.

A completely slack string will not oscillate.

Try it and see.
 
Studiot said:
The rope has to have some tension before you start waggling it.

A completely slack string will not oscillate.

Try it and see.

I know that you need tension to start oscillating. What I'm asking is that when it is oscillating already, how is force/tension/anything transmitted through the stationary nodes, if they don't move at all? On a microscopic, electrostatic force level.
 
What I'm asking is that when it is oscillating already, how is force/tension/anything transmitted through the stationary nodes,

As I indicated a vibrating string is already under tension throughout.

Energy does not pass a node. That is why this type of wave is called a stationary (or standing) wave.

The force of tension is a vector.
The theory of small oscillations assumes the tension does not vary in magnitude along the string, just in direction.
 
Studiot said:
As I indicated a vibrating string is already under tension throughout.

Energy does not pass a node. That is why this type of wave is called a stationary (or standing) wave.

The force of tension is a vector.
The theory of small oscillations assumes the tension does not vary in magnitude along the string, just in direction.

Energy is flowing past each node - it's just that energy is being carried in both directions by two progressive waves, which add up to a standing wave. You need to remember that the (extra) tension in the string varies from zero to a maximum during each half of the oscillation.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top