Energy loss of damped oscillator

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating energy loss in a damped oscillator using gravitational potential energy. Participants explore the relationship between initial and final energy, focusing on the role of angles and the rope's properties. They emphasize the importance of vertical displacement and suggest using trigonometric functions to determine the energy lost over multiple swings. The calculations involve determining the height difference based on angles and rope length, leading to a final energy loss value. Clarifications on diagram accuracy and calculation methods are also provided throughout the conversation.
  • #31
vel said:
I think we posted at the same time, lmao. I have the sine equations in #28. If I did it that all correctly and my line of thought is right, it should be PEgrav = 2.66(-9.8)(.401) = -10.45
I cannot decipher those scribblings. Please take the trouble to type in your working (as specified by the forum rules). Use the labels I made for the points to represent line lengths, e.g. OP'.
 
  • Like
Likes hmmm27
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
haruspex said:
I cannot decipher those scribblings. Please take the trouble to type in your working (as specified by the forum rules). Use the labels I made for the points to represent line lengths, e.g. OP'.
PP': sin(11.9) = opposite (PP')/1.45 -> 1.45sin(11.9) = .298
QQ': 1.45sin(4.1) = .103
.298 + .103 = 4.01
 
  • #33
vel said:
PP': sin(11.9) = opposite (PP')/1.45 -> 1.45sin(11.9) = .298
QQ': 1.45sin(4.1) = .103
.298 + .103 = 4.01
PP' and QQ' are horizontal distances. You are trying to find the vertical distance between P and Q.
 
  • #34
haruspex said:
PP' and QQ' are horizontal distances. You are trying to find the vertical distance between P and Q.
OP': 1.45cos(11.9) = 1.42
OQ': 1.45cos(4.1) = 1.45
OP' - OQ': 1.42 - 1.45 = -.003
 
  • #35
vel said:
OP': 1.45cos(11.9) = 1.42
OQ': 1.45cos(4.1) = 1.45
OP' - OQ': 1.42 - 1.45 = -.003
Better, but that's a bit inaccurate because you are taking the difference of two numbers that are rather close together. Keep more digits through the calculation.
 
  • #36
haruspex said:
Better, but that's a bit inaccurate because you are taking the difference of two numbers that are rather close together. Keep more digits through the calculation.
So my final would be 2.66(-9.8)(-.0274) = .7155 ? (I've got about ten minutes left to put this in; working full days and needing sleep doesn't help me solve problems, lol)
 
  • #37
vel said:
So my final would be 2.66(-9.8)(-.0274) = .7155 ? (I've got about ten minutes left to put this in; working full days and needing sleep doesn't help me solve problems, lol)

Yes, that's the energy lost over 10.5 swings, but it is not clear from post #1 exactly what you are being asked for. My guess is that it's fraction of energy lost per swing, assuming that fraction is a constant.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
825
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
903
Replies
3
Views
750
Replies
8
Views
2K