Damped Oscillator equation - Energy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the damped oscillator equation and the energy expression for the system, E=(1/2)mx'² + (1/2)kx². Participants express confusion over the differentiation of E and its relation to the energy loss in a damped system, specifically questioning the validity of the equation dE/dt = -mvx'. It is noted that the dimensions of -mvx' do not match those of dE/dt, suggesting an error in the original equation. The consensus is that incorporating the differential equation of the damped oscillator is necessary to correctly derive the energy change over time. Ultimately, the approach of substituting the differential equation into the energy expression is highlighted as a more effective method for solving the problem.
Paddyod1509
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
the damped oscillator equation:

(m)y''(t) + (v)y'(t) +(k)y(t)=0

Show that the energy of the system given by

E=(1/2)mx'² + (1/2)kx²

satisfies:

dE/dt = -mvx'


i have gone through this several time simply differentiating the expression for E wrt and i end up with

dE/dt = x'(-vx')

im at a brick wall. Am i doing something wrong? Any help is much appreciated! Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Paddyod1509 said:
the damped oscillator equation:

(m)y''(t) + (v)y'(t) +(k)y(t)=0

Show that the energy of the system given by

E=(1/2)mx'² + (1/2)kx²

satisfies:

dE/dt = -mvx'


i have gone through this several time simply differentiating the expression for E wrt and i end up with

dE/dt = x'(-vx')

im at a brick wall. Am i doing something wrong? Any help is much appreciated! Thanks

There is some sort of problem with the equation you have been asked to prove. A damped oscillator is always losing energy. Your solution shows that is true. The given solution would say the oscillator is sometimes gaining energy if the sign of x' is correct. I don't think that's correct.
 
You can't just differentiate E the way you did and prove the theorem. You need to incorporate the basic diff eq representing a damped spring-mass system. The expression for E represents ANY spring-mass system, damped or not, linear or not, etc.

The only thing I can think of is to solve the diff eq (it's a simple 2nd order one with constant coeff). Apply an initial condition to x = x0. Derive the solution x(t) and then substitute in E, take dE/dt and there you are.

(BTW why is y used in the diff eq and x in E?)

Dick's comment is well taken! Not only his, but I noticed the dimensions don't make sense. dE/dt has dimensions of FLT-1 whereas -mvx' has dimensions of MF where
M = mass
F = force = MLT-2
L = length
T = time.

Thus -mvx' has the wrong dimensions to be dE/dt.
 
Last edited:
rude man said:
You can't just differentiate E the way you did and prove the theorem (BTW it's probably correct). You need to incorporate the basic diff eq representing a damped spring-mass system. The expression for E represents ANY spring-mass system, damped or not, linear or not, etc.

The only thing I can think of is to solve the diff eq (it's a simple 2nd order one with constant coeff). Apply an initial condition to x = x0. Derive the solution x(t) and then substitute in E, take dE/dt and there you are.

(BTW why is y used in the diff eq and x in E?)

Paddyod1509 did substitute the differential equation into dE/dt to get his answer. The given answer can't be right. -vx'^2 has the correct units of J/s. -mvx' doesn't.
 
Dick said:
Paddyod1509 did substitute the differential equation into dE/dt to get his answer. The given answer can't be right. -vx'^2 has the correct units of J/s. -mvx' doesn't.

OK, I was misled by his wording.
 
rude man said:
OK, I was misled by his wording.

Well, he didn't actually say that that's what he did. But once you form dE/dt it's the obvious way to get to -vx'^2.
 
Dick said:
Well, he didn't actually say that that's what he did. But once you form dE/dt it's the obvious way to get to -vx'^2.

So did he solve the d.e. for x(t) and then substitute in E, or what?
 
rude man said:
So did he solve the d.e. for x(t) and then substitute in E, or what?

No. He found dE/dt=mx'x''+kxx'=x'(mx''+kx). The DE then tells you mx''+kx=(-vx'). You don't need to actually solve the DE.
 
Dick said:
No. He found dE/dt=mx'x''+kxx'=x'(mx''+kx). The DE then tells you mx''+kx=(-vx'). You don't need to actually solve the DE.

Thanks. Good job.
 
Back
Top