Conservative overdamped harmonic oscillator?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the non-conservative nature of a damped harmonic oscillator, specifically analyzing the force equation F = -kx - μv. The user aims to demonstrate that no potential function P(x) exists for this system, indicating non-conservativeness. The analysis reveals that while the overdamped case (ζ > 1) results in a non-oscillating, one-to-one function x(t), it does not imply that the force is conservative due to energy dissipation. The conversation concludes with a clarification on the conditions under which work can be considered a function of position.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of harmonic oscillators and damping forces
  • Familiarity with calculus, specifically integration techniques
  • Knowledge of potential energy functions and conservative forces
  • Basic physics concepts related to energy dissipation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of conservative vs. non-conservative forces in physics
  • Explore the mathematical formulation of work done by forces in different systems
  • Investigate the implications of damping ratios (ζ) on harmonic motion
  • Learn about energy conservation principles in mechanical systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on mechanics, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to damped harmonic oscillators and energy dissipation.

inkliing
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
This isn't homework. I'm reviewing calculus and basic physics after many years of neglect.

I want to show that a damped harmonic oscillator in one dimension is nonconservative. Given F = -kx - \small\muv, if F were conservative then there would exist P(x) such that \small -\frac{dP}{dx} = F. I want to show that no such function, P(x), exists.

The easy way would be to find a closed curve around which the integral of Fdx would be zero, but since Fdx is a 1-dimensional 1-form, this doesn't seem to be a meaningful way to do it.

So I think brute force has to prevail. It should be true that:
\small W=\int_{x_1}^{x_2}Fdx = \int_{x_1}^{x_2}(-kx-\mu v)dx = \frac{1}{2}kx_1^2-\frac{1}{2}kx_2^2-\mu\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\frac{dx}{dt}dx = \frac{1}{2}kx_1^2-\frac{1}{2}kx_2^2-\mu\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2 dt
So let \small\omega_{\circ}=\sqrt{k/m}\mbox{ , }\zeta=\frac{\mu}{2\sqrt{mk}}\mbox{ , }\omega_1=\left\{\begin{matrix}\omega_{\circ}\sqrt{\zeta^2-1},&\zeta>1\\\omega_{\circ}\sqrt{1-\zeta^2},&\zeta<1\end{matrix}\right.
For underdamped \small\zeta<1\Rightarrow x=e^{-\zeta\omega_{\circ}t}(C_1 cos\omega_1 t + C_2 sin\omega_1 t)
\small\Rightarrow W=\frac{1}{2}kx_1^2-\frac{1}{2}kx_2^2-\mu\int_{t_1}^{t_2}e^{-2\zeta\omega_{\circ}t}[(-\zeta\omega_{\circ}C_1+\omega_1 C_2) cos\omega_1 t + (-\omega_1 C_1-\zeta\omega_{\circ} C_2) sin\omega_1 t]^2 dt
Therefore x(t) is not 1-1 \small\Rightarrow \int_{x_1}^{x_2}vdx is multivalued implies W is not a function implies p(x) doesn't exist (since W=-\small\DeltaP) implies F is not conservative. Similarly for \small\zeta=1.

But in the overdamped case, \small\zeta>1, x(t) is a non-oscillating decaying exponential which never crosses equilibrium, implying x(t) is 1-1, implying W is a function, implying F is conservative. But how can this be? How can a frictional damping force, which dissipates energy as heat, ever be conservative?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi there,

as you glance at, your conclusion is wrong.
I guess the culprit is the line of argument, "<...>implying x(t) is 1-1, implying W is a function, implying F is conservative<..>".
Even for a non-conservative system one can write the work in moving from a to b as a functional of the motion, as you do. Proving it that such functional is actually a function of the final position only is very different.
To can prove what you are after by simply showing that for two different functions x1(t) and x2(t), with the condition x1(0)=x2(0) and x1(t_given)=x2(t_given), the computed work is different.
Hope it somehow helps.
 
I guess I'm trying to convince myself that it's not always possible to find a function, f(x), such that \small f_{x}(x(t)) = (\frac{dx}{dt})^2. I wish I could think of a simple straightforward way of showing that.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K