DU/dt = 0 for oscillating spring, help with derivation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the equation dU/dt = 0 for an oscillating spring, focusing on the energy equation U = (1/2)mv² + (1/2)kx². Participants note that the term m(d²x/dt²) + kx = 0 is derived by eliminating dx/dt, which overlooks scenarios where velocity (v) can be zero without invalidating the equation. It is emphasized that while dx/dt = 0 can occur at specific points in time or for a stationary spring, it does not apply to the general case of oscillation. The conversation highlights the importance of considering all conditions in the derivation process. Ultimately, the discussion seeks clarity on the assumptions made in the derivation of the energy equation for oscillating systems.
docholliday
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
U = energy
In the book:
\frac{dU}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2} kx^2)

then we have m \frac{d^{2}x}{dt^2} + kx = 0 because v = \frac{dx}{dt}

however they get rid of \frac{dx}{dt} .

They are ignoring the case where v = 0, because then m \frac{d^{2}x}{dt^2} + kx doesn't have to be zero, and it can still satisfy the equation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have y = (dx/dt)^2 and you put u = dx/dt

then y=u^2 such that dy/du = 2u and du/dt = d^2x/dt^2

So dy/dt = 2u*du/dt = 2(dx/dt)(d^2x/dt^2)

In your original equation, differentiating the KE term and the spring term will give you a dx/dt which can be canceled out since dU/dt= 0.
 
You should edit the post and replace [; ... ;] with [i tex] ... [/i tex]
(get rid of the space in [i tex]. I put that in so the parser wouldn't detect it.)
 
yes, i get it but if dx/dt = 0, which it can, then the equation is satisfied and the other term doesn't have to be zero. However, we are saying the other term must always be zero.
 
dx/dt = 0 is true for a two point in time per period only, or for a non-moving spring in equilibrium. That is not relevant for the general case.
 
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