Damped Oscillation Amplitude Decrease vs. Mass Relationship

[JoeyBob]

Homework Statement

See attached

Relevant Equations

x(t) amplitude = Ae^(-bt/2m)

so what I did was e^-(1/10.1)=0.9057

and e^-(1/14.8)=0.93466

Then 0.93466/0.9057 = 1.03198, so the heavier mass dampens 1.03 times more than the lighter mass. If the lighter mass decreases the oscillation to 72.1%, then the heavier mass would be 72.1%*1.03198 = 74.4, but this is wrong. It should be 80

 

[haruspex]

Homework Statement:: See attached

Do I need a telescope?

 

[JoeyBob]

Do I need a telescope?

yes

 

[Steve4Physics]

yes

You may have missed the point of @haruspex's reply!

 

[JoeyBob]

You may have missed the point of @haruspex's reply!

Idk it should be fixed now. I swear I attached it two separate times but I guess it didnt work.

 

[haruspex]

I'm having trouble connecting your numbers in post #1 with those in the attachment. The attachment says it declines to 45.4%.
Even then, ignoring post #1, I don't get 80%. I get that it declines by 40%.
(It's a bit confusing that it gives a percentage it declines to with the first mass, but asks for the percentage it declines by for the second mass.)

 

[JoeyBob]

I'm having trouble connecting your numbers in post #1 with those in the attachment. The attachment says it declines to 45.4%.
Even then, ignoring post #1, I don't get 80%. I get that it declines by 40%.
(It's a bit confusing that it gives a percentage it declines to with the first mass, but asks for the percentage it declines by for the second mass.)

its actually 59.6.

 

[haruspex]

its actually 59.6.

What is 59.6(%), and is that your answer or the book answer?

 

[JoeyBob]

What is 59.6(%), and is that your answer or the book answer?

Answer book.

 

[haruspex]

Answer book.

Ok, so I get the same, except the book seems to have confused the percentage reduced by with the percentage reduced to. For the question asked it should be 40%.

As to your answer, I do not understand your method or the principles you applied. You'll need to explain more. A lot more.

 

[JoeyBob]

Ok, so I get the same, except the book seems to have confused the percentage reduced by with the percentage reduced to. For the question asked it should be 40%.

As to your answer, I do not understand your method or the principles you applied. You'll need to explain more. A lot more.

Wait, so which is it asking then? Percentage reduced to?

 

[haruspex]

Wait, so which is it asking then? Percentage reduced to?

The question asks for reduced by, but the given 60% answer is what it is reduced to.