Is the tension of the string same or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mehrdad_baghery
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    String Tension
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the tension of a string in wave mechanics, highlighting a discrepancy in Halliday's physics book. It notes that tension is considered constant along a stationary string but varies within a wave, leading to confusion about when tensions are equal. The tension is constant in non-moving sections of the string but changes at different points in a wave due to motion. The participants express uncertainty about the conditions under which tension is equal or varies, particularly in relation to wave speed and energy transfer. This confusion underscores the complexities of understanding wave dynamics in physics.
mehrdad_baghery
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
In halliday physics book when we are going to derive the speed or the equation of a wave we consider the tension of the string to be same along the string, but when we are going to derive the energy transferred by the string we consider the tension to be maximum in nodes and minimum in antinodes, what is the reason? Am I making some mistakes?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The tension is constant in a stationary string. It varies inside the wave.
 
Every point in a wave is moving, so it is not stationary, as a result the tension is not same at different points. so why does halliday have considered the tension in a wave same for calculating the wave speed?
 
No, what I meant was that the still areas of the wire in front of and behind the wave are at a constant tension. You need to know this tension to know the tension in the wave (it is additive).
 
Thanx, but it seems that I couldn't explain what I meant. Let me explain with attached picture (pls. see it). In halliday book the 1st picture is used for deriving the speed of a wave, he has considered the specified two tensions (which are shown with F) to be equal.
The 2nd picture has been used for deriving the general equation of a wave; Halliday has considered the specified two tensions (which are shown with F) to be equal, just like the previous part.
Well, here (3rd picture) the problem comes in; Halliday has explained that the tension in part one is not equal with the tension in part two, as a result the potential energies differ from each other.
Now I have mixed up completely, really I don’t know where the tensions are equal and where they aren't.
 

Attachments

  • wave tension.JPG
    wave tension.JPG
    10.4 KB · Views: 485
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