A Damped Oscillator and Negative Damping Force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation of motion for a damped oscillator, m(x'') + b(x') + kx = 0, and the relationship between damping and energy dissipation. It is emphasized that damping opposes motion, and thus the damping force, represented by -b(x'), is responsible for energy loss in the system. The participants suggest that without damping, energy remains constant, while the introduction of damping leads to energy dissipation. There is also a request for clarification on the mathematical derivation of the damping force from the equation of motion. Lastly, the conversation notes the importance of posting homework questions in the appropriate forum.
Nanofan01
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
A damped oscillator is described by the equation m(x'') + b(x') + kx = 0, where the damping force is given by F = -b(x'). Show that the rate of change of the total energy of the oscillator is equal to the (negative) rate at which the damping force dissipates energy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there,

to me, damping intrinsically means that the force opposes motion. So if you have a negative damping force, it's either confusing, or redundant.

This also seems like a homework question, in which case it's not posted in the right forum.

It seems to me like you could use common sense for this question then match the math up to it. If there is no damping, that means that the oscillation will be periodically identical (like a sine wave). No energy will be lost. Once you add that damping, that is the only cause of dissipating energy.

If you calculate the total change in energy of that equation of motion, then do the same without the damping force, you should find that potential + kinetic will be constant. Therefore you can conclude that the damping term is solely responsible for the loss of energy.
 
dacruick said:
to me, damping intrinsically means that the force opposes motion. So if you have a negative damping force, it's either confusing, or redundant.

The force does oppose the motion (assuming b > 0).

m(x'') + b(x') + kx = 0
m(x'') + kx = - b(x') = F
 
It makes sense that the rate of change of the oscillator is equal to the negative damping force but how do you mathematically derive [-b(x')] from [m(x'') + b(x') + kx]?
 
Also, which would be the right forum?
 
Nanofan01 said:
It makes sense that the rate of change of the oscillator is equal to the negative damping force but how do you mathematically derive [-b(x')] from [m(x'') + b(x') + kx]?

the kinetic energy is described by the m(x'') term, and the potential energy is described by the kx term. That leaves one term out right? Which just so happens to be your answer.

And there is a specific forum for homework. I don't think you'll have too much trouble finding it if you look.
 
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top