Differential equation of frictional force

AI Thread 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.
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top