Differential equation of frictional force

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the differential equation governing the motion of a mass attached to springs and subject to friction. The proposed solution, which involves sinusoidal functions, is challenged for not exhibiting decay over time, suggesting the need for a more complex friction term that includes a sign function. The correct form of the equation is debated, with emphasis on the necessity of a friction term that accounts for directionality in the force. Concerns are raised about the particle's behavior at equilibrium, questioning why it would stop moving there without additional static friction. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately modeling friction to reflect realistic motion in mechanical systems.
Dazed&Confused
Messages
190
Reaction score
3
A question from a classical mechanics past paper described a particle of mass
##m## that had a pair of horizontal identical springs of spring constant ##k## attached on either side and that the mass is free to move horizontally. The mass is also placed on a table that gives rise to an additional frictional force; the coefficient of sliding friction between the mass and the table is ## \mu ##.

You have to 'verify' that the following is a solution of the equation of motion:

$$ x_B(t) = B \sin( \omega_B t) + C( \cos( \omega_B t) - 1).$$

In my opinion this is wrong. The solution clearly should decay in time. It seems that the differential equation they wanted was of the form

$$ x''(t) = -2kx(t) - \mu mg.$$

I think it should be

$$ x''(t) = -2kx(t) - \mu mg \text{Sign}(x'(t)),$$

where ##\text{Sign}(x)## is defined to be 1 if ##x > 0## and -1 if ## x < 0. ##

Is there something wrong with my thinking? Keep in mind that Mathematica's numerical solution does show a particle approximately exhibiting SHM motion, but also decaying with time, however it does not ultimately stop moving at the equilibrium position.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You definitely need a sign in the friction term or it only describes a constant force acting in a determined direction. This is equivalent to a gravitational force on a vertical spring with a mass attached and does nothing but translate the solution to be oscillations around the new equilibrium position.

Dazed&Confused said:
however it does not ultimately stop moving at the equilibrium position.

Why do you think it would stop moving at the equilibrium position? (I assume you here mean the position where the spring is at its lowest potential energy.)
 
Well if it stopped at any other position there would be a net force on the particle due to the springs, since I haven't added a static friction term.
 
For simple comparison, I think the same thought process can be followed as a block slides down a hill, - for block down hill, simple starting PE of mgh to final max KE 0.5mv^2 - comparing PE1 to max KE2 would result in finding the work friction did through the process. efficiency is just 100*KE2/PE1. If a mousetrap car travels along a flat surface, a starting PE of 0.5 k th^2 can be measured and maximum velocity of the car can also be measured. If energy efficiency is defined by...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
981
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K