Harmonic Motion and Springs Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the formula for the period T of harmonic motion in relation to mass and spring constants. The key equation discussed is α = ωt, which relates angular displacement to time, and is justified as analogous to linear motion equations. The derivation leads to the relationship T = 2π√(m/k), linking mass and spring constant to the period of oscillation. Participants clarify the use of symbols and the assumption of constant angular velocity, emphasizing its importance in relating circular motion to simple harmonic motion. The conversation highlights the foundational principles of physics underlying these calculations.
Mattara
Messages
347
Reaction score
1
I'm trying to derive the formula for the period T as a function of the mass of the object. Here is my attempt. Note that I cheated and passed the section I had trouble with, without fully understanding it.

http://www.filehive.com/files/0722/image.jpg

Much of this is quite straightforward for me.

y = A sin \alpha (basic trigonometry)
----
Here is the part I'm not sure I understand fully:

\alpha = \omega t

Why does that equation work?
-----

The angle alpha is replaced by \psi t so the result is:

y = A sin \omega t

The speed in the y direction is as follows:

v(t) = \frac {dy} {dt} = \omega A cos \omega t

The acceleration in the y direction is:

a(t) = \frac {d^2x} {dt^2} = -\omega^2 A sin \omega t

The above is simple calculus.

When a net force is acting on a body an acceleration will show.

The force that is acting on the body is (via hookes law):

F = -ky

If we replace y with the expression we derived earlier we get

F = ma = -m \omega^2 A sin \alpha t
F = -ky = -k A sin \alpha t

ie.

m \omega^2 = -k \Leftrightarrow \omega = \sqrt{k / m}

Combining the above expression with the commonly known

\omega = 2 \pi / T

and you get the final result

T = 2 \pi \sqrt {m / k}

------

My question is:

Why is \alpha = \omega t?

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
They assume the angular velocity is a constant.
It probably isn't, so they've hidden away an order of magnitude argument that would show it is a good approximation.

(That is, they've hidden away everything that physics is about)
 
So it is basically because

\alpha = \omega t

Unit:

rad = rad/s x s

with the approximation that angular velocity is constant?
 
Yep, that should be it.
 
I was just wondering why you used psi instead of omega. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not written that way, usually.

alpaha = omega.t is just the rotational counterpart of s = vt (linear motion with constant velocity).
 
neutrino said:
I was just wondering why you used psi instead of omega. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not written that way, usually.

alpaha = omega.t is just the rotational counterpart of s = vt (linear motion with constant velocity).

Yes, I noticed that, so I changed it. The "how-to-latex" got me confused for a bit before i realized it.

Thank you arildno and neutrino! I really should check the units (as in rad = rad/s x s) more often :smile:
 
arildno said:
They assume the angular velocity is a constant.
It probably isn't, so they've hidden away an order of magnitude argument that would show it is a good approximation.

(That is, they've hidden away everything that physics is about)

The question is not explicitly provided but I was under the impression that that goal was to relate the motion of a mass attached to an ideal spring to circular motion. In that case, using a constant angular velocity is not an approximation or a guess. It follows from the fact that the projection along one of the axis must represent simple harmonic motion. And that implies a constant omega.

Just a comment.

Regards

Patrick
 
Back
Top