Derivation of van der pol oscillator

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the van der Pol oscillator equation from a characteristic equation involving a diode circuit. The user is attempting to fit a cubic polynomial to the curve as suggested in a referenced paper but is struggling with the details, particularly on how to eliminate the U^3 term. They have tried substituting variables to simplify the equation but still face challenges with the remaining U^2 and U^3 terms. Suggestions are sought on whether to manipulate the polynomial directly within the characteristic equation or explore alternative techniques. The goal remains to clearly understand the transition to the van der Pol equation.
Slightly
Messages
29
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given characteristic equation for a circuit containing a diode, I must figure out how to fit a polynomial to the curve so that the van der pol equation is obtained.

The paper I am reading is here:

http://www.unige.ch/math/hairer60/pres/pres_rentrop.pdf

My doubts are located on page three where the author talks about fitting the polynomial of degree three. I am trying to fill in the details as it isn't quite clear what he is actually doing.

Suggestions?

Should I plug the polynomial into the characteristic equation and manipulate it? Or is there some other technique?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He is just filling it in I think.

C\ddot{U} + \left( \frac{RC}{L} + \frac{d}{du}\left(a_1U +a_2U^2 +a_3U^3\right)\right)\dot{U} + \frac{1}{L}\left(R(a_1U +a_2U^2 +a_3U^3) + U - U_{op}\right)

It looks like it is going to look as is stated. Have you tried it and doesn't it work?
 
barefeet said:
He is just filling it in I think.

C\ddot{U} + \left( \frac{RC}{L} + \frac{d}{du}\left(a_1U +a_2U^2 +a_3U^3\right)\right)\dot{U} + \frac{1}{L}\left(R(a_1U +a_2U^2 +a_3U^3) + U - U_{op}\right)

It looks like it is going to look as is stated. Have you tried it and doesn't it work?
Yea, I tried plugging everything in like you just did, but I could not figure out how to get rid of the U^3 term.
 
In the bracket it vanishes due to the derivative, but outside it does not.
Setting y=U+d with the right constant d gets rid of the U term in the brackets, but then you still have those U^2 and U^3 outside.
 
That's exactly what I don't want. I'm trying to figure out how they get to the van der pol equation.
 
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