Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Coupled driven and damped oscillators

  1. Mar 30, 2014 #1

    I'm trying to analyze a system of elastically coupled oscillators, whose masses are all the same, using fourier expansion. So the differential equation im looking at right now is of the form

    [itex]m\frac{d^2\hat{y}_k}{dt^2} + \gamma\frac{d\hat{y}_k}{dt} - \kappa\Delta^2\hat{y}_k = \hat{f}_k(t)[/itex]

    Here the [itex]\hat{y}_k[/itex] is a particular fourier coefficient of a position vector with all of its components being the position function y(t) of each of the particles. The [itex]\hat{f}_k[/itex] is the corresponding fourier coefficient for the driving force. So basically

    [itex]\vec{y} = <y_0(t), y_1(t), y_2(t), ..., y_{M-1}(t)>[/itex]


    [itex]\vec{f} = <f_0(t), f_1(t), f_2(t), ..., f_{M-1}(t)> [/itex]

    And these two vectors have then been decomposed into fourier representation. After taking the inner product it was possible to create M differential equations of the form above, which I am now working with.

    Now -- im trying to show that a particular solution to the differential equation is given by

    [itex]\hat{y}_k(t) = A(\nu(k), \omega(k, \gamma))\sin(\nu(k)t + \phi)[/itex]

    When the fourier coefficients for the force are oscillating like

    [itex]\hat{f}_k(t) = \hat{f}_k(0)sin(\nu(k)t) = \frac{e^{i\nu(k)t} - e^{-i\nu(k)t}}{2i}\hat{f}_k(0)[/itex]

    It might be me whose blind (or tired after hours of work), but when I insert the particular solution (or what should be), I get to the point where I have the following:

    [itex]A(\nu(k), \omega(\gamma, k))\left[-m\nu(k)^2sin(\nu(k)t+\phi) + \gamma\nu(k)\cos(\nu(k)t+\phi) - \kappa\lambda(k)\sin(\nu(k)t+\phi)\right] = \frac{e^{i\nu(k)t} - e^{-i\nu(k)t}}{2i}[/itex]

    I've tried several things such as taking out the sine, and converting it using the addition trigonometric identity. I also tried converting the sines and cosines to complex exponentials, but I just can't seem to see where I should go.

    So basically I'm out of creativity and a almost out of coffee. So any help, hints, tips or guidance would be very much appreciated.

    Thank you.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 31, 2014 #2

    The first equation is supposed to be:


    Without the lattice laplacian. The lambda is an eigenvalue to the lattice laplacian.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook