Classical Mechanics: Lightly Damped Oscillator Driven Near Resonance

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a lightly damped oscillator driven near resonance, focusing on the energy lost per cycle in relation to the Q factor. Participants are tasked with showing that this energy loss can be approximated by a constant divided by the Q factor, with hints provided by the professor regarding the integration of the force of friction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss integrating the force of friction to find energy loss, with some suggesting the use of exponential forms of sine for simplification. Others question whether to expand sine as a series or use specific identities.

Discussion Status

Some participants are actively working through the integral and exploring different approaches, while others express uncertainty about the assumptions to make regarding light damping. Hints and suggestions for simplifying the integral have been provided, but no consensus has been reached on a method that leads to a clear solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the integral involved and the potential need to neglect certain terms due to light damping. There is also mention of different definitions of the Q factor that could yield similar results.

RylonMcknz
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello Physics Forum! I have a question:

The problem: For a lightly damped oscillator being driven near resonance in the steady state, show that the fraction of its energy that is lost per cycle can be approximated by a constant (something like 2pi, which is to be determined) divided by the Q factor (Q is defined as the resonant frequency of a driven damped oscillator divided by 2*β, where β is the damping parameter).


My professor gave this hint to get us started: ΔE = ∫Fdx. Where E is the energy lost, and F is the force of friction. We are supposed to integrate from 0 to τ(cycle/period), and the professor suggested to change dx to (dx/dt)dt = vdt.

I have spent much time attempting to figure this out. I think that the frictional force is F=-bv, where b is some positive constant and v is the velocity. I try to use the solution of the differential equation for such motion, which is x(t)=Ae^(-βt)cos(ωt-δ). I take the derivative of this to get v(t). The second term in v(t) can be ignored because the damping is light. So I have:

ΔE = -b∫v^2dt from 0 to τ, where v(t)≈-Ae^(-βt)ωsin(ωt-δ). This integral makes a nasty mess that doesn't get me anything useful. I think I need to simplify this further by approximation, but I don't know which assumptions to make.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are on the right track! Just do the integral. It might help to rewrite the sine in terms of exps!
 
Should I expand sine as a series or use the identity sin(z)=[e^(iz)-e^(-iz)]/2i?
 
Use the identity sin(z)=[e^(iz)-e^(-iz)]/2i.

Or better still, take the general solution as the real part of ##Ce^{st}## where ##s = -b + i\omega## and ##C## is a complex constant.
 
RylonMcknz said:
Hello Physics Forum! I have a question:

The problem: For a lightly damped oscillator being driven near resonance in the steady state, show that the fraction of its energy that is lost per cycle can be approximated by a constant (something like 2pi, which is to be determined) divided by the Q factor (Q is defined as the resonant frequency of a driven damped oscillator divided by 2*β, where β is the damping parameter).


My professor gave this hint to get us started: ΔE = ∫Fdx. Where E is the energy lost, and F is the force of friction. We are supposed to integrate from 0 to τ(cycle/period), and the professor suggested to change dx to (dx/dt)dt = vdt.

I have spent much time attempting to figure this out. I think that the frictional force is F=-bv, where b is some positive constant and v is the velocity. I try to use the solution of the differential equation for such motion, which is x(t)=Ae^(-βt)cos(ωt-δ). I take the derivative of this to get v(t). The second term in v(t) can be ignored because the damping is light. So I have:

ΔE = -b∫v^2dt from 0 to τ, where v(t)≈-Ae^(-βt)ωsin(ωt-δ). This integral makes a nasty mess that doesn't get me anything useful. I think I need to simplify this further by approximation, but I don't know which assumptions to make.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!


As a sanity check, you can work the problem again with Q being defined as reactance over resistance. You should get the same answer. :)
 
Thank you everyone for the help. I've been working the problem when I have time. When I put sine in the exp form and integrate, it looks terrible. But a further hint from the professor says that I should be looking for ΔE/E. I think that is the key, but I'm still unsure. I'll be able to work it further when I get home. Again, thanks so much for the help.
 
I'm still unable to solve the problem. I can't seem to make this integral manageable enough to continue. I attempted to use Wolfram Alpha to integrate before and after putting sine in exp form, but I'm still unable to move forward. I feel like there must be some terms I should be neglecting because of the light damping.
 
Try this:

Determine the energy dissipation per cycle. (I know, this is cheating, but you'll get some great insights!)

Eric
 
I still don't see, where there might be a problem. You have an integral of the form
\int \mathrm{d} t \exp(-a t) \sin^2(b t)
with constants a and b. Now you write
\sin(b t)=\frac{\exp(\mathrm{i} b t)-\exp(-\mathrm{i} b t)}{2 \mathrm{i}},
take the square and multiply it out. Then you end with integrals of the form
\int \mathrm{d} t \exp(c t),
and over a constant which are really easy to deal with.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K