DU/dt = 0 for oscillating spring, help with derivation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the equation for energy conservation in an oscillating spring system, specifically addressing the condition where the rate of change of potential energy (dU/dt) is equal to zero. Participants explore the implications of this condition and the assumptions involved in the derivation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the book's derivation leads to the equation m(d²x/dt²) + kx = 0, but questions the omission of the case where velocity (dx/dt) equals zero, suggesting that this does not necessarily imply the equation must hold.
  • Another participant introduces a substitution where y = (dx/dt)² and u = dx/dt, leading to a differentiation approach that involves canceling terms under the assumption that dU/dt = 0.
  • A participant suggests that the condition dx/dt = 0 occurs only at specific points in time during the oscillation or when the spring is at equilibrium, arguing that this is not applicable to the general case of oscillation.
  • There is a suggestion to edit a previous post for clarity regarding the formatting of mathematical expressions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of dx/dt = 0 in the context of the energy equation. There is no consensus on whether this condition can be disregarded in the general case of oscillation.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made during the derivation, particularly regarding the treatment of velocity and its implications for the energy equation.

docholliday
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
U = energy
In the book:
\frac{dU}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{1}{2} mv^2 + \frac{1}{2} kx^2)

then we have m \frac{d^{2}x}{dt^2} + kx = 0 because v = \frac{dx}{dt}

however they get rid of \frac{dx}{dt} .

They are ignoring the case where v = 0, because then m \frac{d^{2}x}{dt^2} + kx doesn't have to be zero, and it can still satisfy the equation.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have y = (dx/dt)^2 and you put u = dx/dt

then y=u^2 such that dy/du = 2u and du/dt = d^2x/dt^2

So dy/dt = 2u*du/dt = 2(dx/dt)(d^2x/dt^2)

In your original equation, differentiating the KE term and the spring term will give you a dx/dt which can be canceled out since dU/dt= 0.
 
You should edit the post and replace [; ... ;] with [i tex] ... [/i tex]
(get rid of the space in [i tex]. I put that in so the parser wouldn't detect it.)
 
yes, i get it but if dx/dt = 0, which it can, then the equation is satisfied and the other term doesn't have to be zero. However, we are saying the other term must always be zero.
 
dx/dt = 0 is true for a two point in time per period only, or for a non-moving spring in equilibrium. That is not relevant for the general case.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K