Derivation of angular frequency of coupled Oscillator-vertical spring

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the angular frequency for a system of vertically hanging springs with masses. The user is attempting to formulate equations of motion for three cases involving equal and different masses and springs. They have established initial equations but are struggling to progress, particularly in ensuring the correct setup of forces acting on the masses. Guidance is provided on expressing the system as a single differential equation and the importance of consistent sign conventions in the equations. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in the setup to accurately derive the desired expressions for angular frequency.
rshalloo
Messages
48
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I'm trying to derive an expression for the angular frequency of a set of springs hanging vertically down with masses in between them. 3 cases:
2 equal masses and springs.
2 different masses and equal springs
3 equal masses and springs


Homework Equations


ω0=√(k/m)
F= -kx


The Attempt at a Solution



i know its a combination of 2 fundamental modes
and that the answer I'm aiming for for the first case is (ω1^2)=((3+√5)/2)(ω0)^2 and (ω2^2)=((3-√5)/2)(ω0)^2
But i can't get there.
I did out a force diagram for the general case of 2 uneven masses and 2 springs which i hoped would do for case 1 and 2 (case1 just being a special case of case2) and came up with 2 equations of motion
ma1=-2kx1 +kx2 +(m1+m2)g
ma2=-kx2 +kx1 + m2g

I really don't know where to go from here, can someone please point me in the right direction. I am looking for someone to give me the derivation but you know that feeling when you hit a brick wall? you :P
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I understand the setup correctly. Are you saying you have 2 masses and 2 springs in the configuration (ceiling)-(spring1)-(mass1)-(spring2)-(mass2), such that the whole system is hanging vertically with mass 2 at the bottom? If that's the case, I don't think your equations are quite right.

In any case, once you get the equations, you can solve them by expressing them as a single differential equation for a 2-component vector. In other words, it goes into a form like this:
\begin{pmatrix}m_1 & 0 \\ 0 & m_2\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\ddot{x}_1 \\ \ddot{x}_2\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}k_{11} & k_{12} \\ k_{21} & k_{22}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2\end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix}C_1 \\ C_2\end{pmatrix}
or in more compact notation,
\tilde{M}\ddot{\vec{x}} = \tilde{K}\vec{x} + \vec{C}
and then you can find the normal modes and their frequencies by a procedure that basically boils down to computing the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of \tilde{M}^{-1}\tilde{K}.
 
Thanks Diazona, I've been at this all weekend but can't figure out where my equations are going wrong, could you possibly give me a hint or a worked example?


Thanks A million

Rob
 
I thought I gave you a hint - more than that, even, I told you how to solve the problem :wink: How about starting with the setup of your equations... what are the individual forces acting on each of the two masses? (If you can post a diagram of the configuration here that would be very helpful)
 
Heres my working out
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2011-10-16 at 19.15.13.png
    Screen Shot 2011-10-16 at 19.15.13.png
    41.2 KB · Views: 1,145
Sorry for the delayed response, I was kind of busy. Thanks for posting the diagram though.

As far as setting up the diagram and equations, you just need to be consistent with the signs. That means once you've chosen a direction to be positive, make sure that x_1 > 0 actually does represent a displacement in that direction, and similarly for x_2 and the forces. (Technically, you don't need to do this, but it gets really confusing otherwise.)

I notice from your diagram that you're missing one force on the upper mass.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top