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

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the equation dU/dt = 0 for an oscillating spring, focusing on the energy equation U = (1/2)mv² + (1/2)kx². Participants note that the term m(d²x/dt²) + kx = 0 is derived by eliminating dx/dt, which overlooks scenarios where velocity (v) can be zero without invalidating the equation. It is emphasized that while dx/dt = 0 can occur at specific points in time or for a stationary spring, it does not apply to the general case of oscillation. The conversation highlights the importance of considering all conditions in the derivation process. Ultimately, the discussion seeks clarity on the assumptions made in the derivation of the energy equation for oscillating systems.
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.
 
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top