Boundary conditions for an antinode?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BomboshMan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conditions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the boundary conditions for standing waves, specifically addressing the confusion between nodes and antinodes. For nodes, the displacement at the boundaries is zero, while for antinodes, the maximum displacement is ±2a. The original poster questions whether the lecturer's assertion that D(0,t) and D(L,t) equal ±2a at all times is correct, suggesting it should reflect maximum displacement rather than constant values. Another participant proposes that the correct boundary conditions for antinodes involve derivatives of displacement being zero at the boundaries, leading to a different interpretation of the displacement function. Clarification is sought on the proper understanding of these boundary conditions in the context of standing waves.
BomboshMan
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Hi,

If I have two sinusoidal waves with the same frequency, wavelength and amplitude, traveling along the same line in opposite directions, the net displacement of the resulting standing wave wave is given by

D(x,t) = 2a*sin(kx)*cos(ωt)

the boundary conditions for standing waves on a string from x=0 to x=L are

D(0,t) = 0 (which satisfies the above equation at all times), and
D(L,t) = 0, which satisfies the equation when L = 0.5mλ , m=1,2,3... (or λ = 2L/m)

This I understand because the displacement of a node at any time must = 0.

Now I've been told by my physics lecturer (who's not very good), that for antinodes at x = 0 and x = L, e.g. standing waves in a pool, the equation for disturbance is

D(x,t) = 2a*cos(kx)*cos(ωt),

and that the boundary conditions for antinodes at x = 0 and x = L are

D(0,t) = ±2a
D(L,t) = ±2a

which I get where this is coming from (same sort of thing as boundary conditions for nodes), but wouldn't this suggest that the displacement of x = 0 and x = L are ±2a at all times? Surely it only makes sense to say the max displacement of x = 0 and x = L is ±2a

I may just be getting confused, but if someone could shed some light on this it would help a lot!

Thanks,

Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BomboshMan said:
and that the boundary conditions for antinodes at x = 0 and x = L are

D(0,t) = ±2a
D(L,t) = ±2a

That looks wrong. I think it should be
##\partial D(0,t)/\partial x## = 0
##\partial D(1,t)/\partial x## = 0

which gives ##D(0,t) = D(1,t) = 2a \cos(\omega t)##.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top