Average Kinetic & Potential Energy in Simple Harmonic Motion

AI Thread Summary
In simple harmonic motion (SHM), the average kinetic energy (K.E) is equal to twice the average potential energy (P.E). This relationship arises because K.E is proportional to the square of velocity, while P.E is proportional to the square of displacement. The integration of these energies with respect to time confirms that average K.E equals 2 times average P.E. The confusion often stems from calculating average energies with respect to displacement instead of time. Understanding the dynamics of SHM clarifies why K.E consistently exceeds P.E in this context.
sadhu
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
in SHM
average K.E when done w.r.t to time is equal to average potential energy calculated w.r.t to time.

but today in class when my sir asked me to to prove average K.e = average P.E
I just tried integrating it w.r.t to displacement and then divided it with A ,
I thought this gives us av . energies in 1/4 vibration and as all the four parts are identical
average will remain same , but i found that av . K.E=2*av. P.E

I then done this again w.r.t to time and got the answer

but still I am confused , about how can that come i.e K=2*P.E
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In simple harmonic motion, the potential energy of an object is given by PE = (1/2)kx^2. Because there is a relationship between displacement and velocity (x = A cos(wt)), you can use calculus to calculate the average kinetic energy of an object in SHM by taking the time derivative of the potential energy equation.

The average kinetic energy of an object in SHM is equal to twice the average potential energy. This is because the kinetic energy of an object is proportional to its velocity squared, while the potential energy is proportional to its displacement squared. Since the velocity of an object in SHM is changing twice as fast as its displacement, the average kinetic energy must be twice the average potential energy.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top