Harmonic oscillator, friction, impulse

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the equation of motion for a linear harmonic oscillator experiencing friction and an impulse at rest. The initial attempt at formulating the equation led to confusion regarding the correct representation of impulse and its impact on the motion equation. The book's formulation introduces a term v0/t0 * (1/m), which raises questions about unit consistency and the interpretation of impulse duration. Additionally, there is a query about determining the damping condition of the oscillator, with a focus on the relationship between the coefficients a, k, and m. The conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting impulse and damping in harmonic motion equations.
covers
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A linear harmonic oscillator is subject to friction(stokes). The Oscillator gets an Impulse at the time t = 0 at the rest position. What is the equation of motion for the time interval 0 - t0?

Homework Equations



Friction force: Fr = -a * x'(t); a = constant (stokes friction)
Impulse: F(t) = m *v0 / t0 (for 0 <= t <= t0)

k = spring constant
m = mass

x(t = 0) = 0 (rest position at the time t = 0)
x'(t = 0) = 0 (velocity at the time t = 0 is zero)

The Attempt at a Solution



I have a little trouble with the impulse here. My attempt at a solution was this:
m*x'' = -k*x - a*x' + m*v0/t0 ==> x'' + (a/m)*x' + (k/m)*x = v0 / t0

But my book claims that the equation really goes like this:
x'' + (a/m)*x' + (k/m)*x = v0 / t0 * (1/m)

Does somebody know why I am wrong and the book is right? I don't understand it, because I thought I needed a force(respectively acceleration) in above equation of motion. How does v0 / t0 * (1/m) fit into the equation, doesn't it have the wrong units?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your notation. You say the Impulse is at time t = 0 but then you give it as a change of momentum divided by the whole time of the motion (t0).

I would have interpreted the "impulse at t = 0" to mean the initial velocity was v0 (not 0) and the equation for time 0 <= t <= t0 was just mx" + ax' + kx = 0.

But I learned this stuff 30 years ago, so the standard terminology might have changed since then.

If v0 and t0 are a velocity and a time then you are correct, your units are consistent and the book apparently is not.
 
Thanks for helping!

AlephZero said:
I don't understand your notation. You say the Impulse is at time t = 0 but then you give it as a change of momentum divided by the whole time of the motion (t0).

As far as I understand it, the impulse lasts per definition for a certain time interval. In my example here, it goes from t = 0 to t = t0. In my book it is stated as like that: F(t) = m*v0/t0 (for 0 <= t <= t0).

AlephZero said:
I would have interpreted the "impulse at t = 0" to mean the initial velocity was v0 (not 0) and the equation for time 0 <= t <= t0 was just mx" + ax' + kx = 0.

The velocity at t = 0 is clearly stated as 0. Maybe it would be more correct to write the impulse like that: F(t) = m*v0/t0 (for 0 < t <= t0). But I'm not sure about that. Also, x'(t = 0) = 0 is used to determine initial conditions later in the exercise.
AlephZero said:
If v0 and t0 are a velocity and a time then you are correct, your units are consistent and the book apparently is not.

Yes, v0 and t0 are velocity and time (sorry if I was not precise enough). The Problem is just, if that's an error in the book its hard to believe! Because as the exercise goes on, this has a lot of consequences, and the term 'v0 / t0 * (1/m)' is used throughout the whole exercise...
 
Last edited:
OK, so he's assuming the impulse comes from a constant force for the time interval 0 <= t <= t0, and if it was applied to a free mass m it would produce velocity v0 at time t0.

In which case, sorry, I don't understand why the 1/m is there.
 
Thanks anyway. Maybe it's really an error.

I take the opportunity to ask another question about this exercise.

At one point, I have to decide whether 'a / (2*m)' is bigger or smaller or equal to 'sqrt(k/m)'. This is relevant when deciding if the oscillator is overdamped, underdamped or critically damped. Is there a way to decide with the information given what kind of oscillator it is? The book is assuming that the oscillator is underdamped, but it does not explain why...
 
The solutions of the equation of motion mx" + ax' + kx = 0 (with no external forces) are exponentials. The exponents are either real (overdamped case) or complex (underdamped, oscillating solutions).

A trial solution x = e^st gives the auxiliary equation ms^2 + as + k = 0 to determine s. The condition for real or imaginary roots of this quadratic equation is that a^2 - 4mk is greater or less than 0. For the critically damped case a^2 - 4mk = 0, there is only one repeated root for s, and the two independent solutions are e^st and t.e^st.

Look for a text on solutions of second order linear differential equations if you need more on this.

Beware - some texts on vibration write this equation in the form mx" + 2ax' + kx. Take care with the 2's.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top