Mean power in driven, damped harmonic oscillators

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the transition in equations related to driven, damped harmonic oscillators. A participant seeks clarification on how a specific mathematical expression simplifies, particularly regarding the real and imaginary components. It is explained that the imaginary terms do not contribute to the real part, which is crucial for understanding the physical implications of work done by the force. The conversation highlights the significance of phase relationships in oscillation, especially at resonance. Ultimately, the confusion is resolved, emphasizing the importance of careful equation interpretation.
yjx
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Ok, there's a bit I don't understand in my lecture notes. The maths doesn't seem to quite work out. Any help would be appreciated.

Here's the section I'm confused about:

http://img228.imageshack.us/i/physy.jpg/

It's the transition from the second last line of working to the last line which I can't figure out.

It's probably just me being stupid but I can't see how the two are equivalent.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You mean getting from Real part of the long expression, to
m gamma |v_0|^2 ??

The reason is that the omegas are real quantities, so the term divided by (i omega) is imaginary and doesn't contribute to the real part.

What this means phyiscally is that the force only does work over a complete cycle against the displacement component that is 90 degrees out of phase with it (or the velocity component that is in phase with it). At resonance, the displacement is 90 degrees out of phase with the force, so the force can do work and maintain the amplitude of oscillation at a large value. A long way away from resonance, the displacement is either nearly in phase with the force or nearly 180 degrees out of phase. The force puts energy into the system for half of each cycle but the energy is given back during the other half, and the amount of work done over the complete cycle is small.
 
Ah of course, I'd read the equation wrongly. I thought that the gamma was within the division which it isn't. Now it makes perfect sense! I blame poor equation writing (obviously not my failure to count the number of brackets).

Thanks for the help!
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
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?
Back
Top