Assumptions for string vibrator system

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the transition time for an initial antinode at a string vibrator to become a node during the transient phase of a vibrating string system. Participants clarify that the frequency increase is gradual, making the transient phase negligible, and the mass's movement is also considered minimal. It is noted that the mass acts as a fixed boundary reflecting waves with a 180-degree phase shift, while the end of the string near the vibrator behaves effectively as a node due to the greater deviations at the antinodes. The conversation references a figure from a textbook to illustrate these concepts and highlights the practical implications of string resonance. Overall, the thread emphasizes the relationship between string vibration dynamics and the behavior of nodes and antinodes in a steady-state system.
member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this,
1682629997163.png

Is it possible to calculate the time it takes for the initial antinode at the string vibrator to become a node in the transient phase of the system? Also do we assume that once the system has reached steady state, that the mass has such a large inertia that it is stationary so acts as a fixed boundary reflecting the waves at a 180-degree phase shift relative to the incident traveling waves?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
Is it possible to calculate the time it takes for the initial antinode at the string vibrator to become a node in the transient phase of the system? Also do we assume that once the system has reached steady state, that the mass has such a large inertia that it is stationary so acts as a fixed boundary reflecting the waves at a 180-degree phase shift relative to the incident traveling waves?

Many thanks!
Not sure I understand your first question. The frequency is increased slowly, meaning that when arriving at any given frequency the transient phase to steady state is negligible.
Yes, the movement of the mass is also considered negligible here.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
Hi,
ChiralSuperfields said:
Is it possible to calculate the time it takes for the initial antinode at the string vibrator to become a node in the transient phase of the system?
That point is as good as fixed. Check with fig 16.29
ChiralSuperfields said:
Also do we assume that once the system has reached steady state, that the mass has such a large inertia that it is stationary so acts as a fixed boundary reflecting the waves at a 180-degree phase shift relative to the incident traveling waves?
The fixed point is at the pulley.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
How would you have a node at the vibrator end? And where is figure 29? Does it show a node at the vibrator end?
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and member 731016
nasu said:
How would you have a node at the vibrator end?
Yeah, I don't get that either. How do you drive vibrations on a string from a node?
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
This is practical physics. The string resonates and the deviations from equilibrium at antinodes are much greater than at the vibrator end, so fapp (for all practical purposes) that end is a node. (Thorough experimentation can reveal how near the virtual node is further to the left).



##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016, nasu and haruspex
BvU said:
The string resonates and the deviations from equilibrium at antinodes are much greater than at the vibrator end, so fapp (for all practical purposes) that end is a node. (Thorough experimentation can reveal how near the virtual node is further to the left).
Huh, TIL. Thanks @BvU :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
nasu said:
Does it show a node at the vibrator end?
Calling my bluff eh ? :wink:
My reputation is in the hands of @ChiralSuperfields :nb)

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
I asked this before you posted your video. This is better than figure 29, whatever that is.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
  • #10
I have played several times with this PHET simulation but I have not relized (until now) that by using a small amplitude of one end you can produce a much higher amplitude at the node.
So, it works even for a simulation, not just in the real world. :smile:

 
  • Like
Likes member 731016 and haruspex
  • #11
nasu said:
I have played several times with this PHET simulation but I have not relized (until now) that by using a small amplitude of one end you can produce a much higher amplitude at the node.
So, it works even for a simulation, not just in the real world. :smile:


I note that in some cases there is a real node just to the right, in others a virtual node just to the left. It would be interesting to predict that displacement as a function of the parameters.
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
Back
Top