Oscillations about equilibrium

In summary, the block oscillates about equilibrium for the spring. A weak frictional force of constant magnitude 2.7 N causes the oscillations to diminish slowly. The block oscillates many times and eventually comes to rest. First, show that the decrease in amplitude is the same for each cycle of oscillation. Now, suppose the initial displacement from quilibrium is 0.57 m. How many cycles will occur before the block comes to rest?
  • #1
toastie
46
0

Homework Statement


The block oscillates about equilibrium for the spring. A weak frictional force of constant magnitude 2.7 N causes the oscillations to diminish slowly. The block oscillates many times and eventually comes to rest. First, show that the decrease in amplitude is the same for each cycle of oscillation. now, suppose the initial displacement from quilibrium is 0.57 m. How many cycles will occur before the block comes to rest?
spring constant k = 51.3 N/cm


Homework Equations


mx"w^2 + 0.57 - 2.7 = 0

x" = the second derivative of x

The Attempt at a Solution


I keep trying find an equation to solve this problem, but I keep getting the above equation which I can't solve for because I have 2 unknowns.

Am I taking the right approch to this problem?

Thank you in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
toastie said:
mx"w^2 + 0.57 - 2.7 = 0
I'm not quite sure how you've constructed that equation, but as far as I can tell it is incorrect.

Can you use Newton's second law to create an equation of motion?
 
  • #3
I have done an energy and force anaylsis. They both give the following equation: mx" - kx - constant magnitude = 0
 
  • #4
toastie said:
I have done an energy and force anaylsis. They both give the following equation: mx" - kx - constant magnitude = 0
So where does the w come from and where does the k disappear to in your expression?
 
  • #5
I mistyped the equation. Sorry for the confusion about equation! The equation I just typed is the one that I keep getting.
 
  • #6
toastie said:
I mistyped the equation. Sorry for the confusion about equation! The equation I just typed is the one that I keep getting.
toastie said:
mx" - kx - constant magnitude = 0
Good. So, this is a standard ODE, do you know how to solve it?
 
  • #7
I don't know how to solve this problem without the mass.
 
  • #8
toastie said:
I don't know how to solve this problem without the mass.
You don't need to explicitly know the mass - you are not asked for a numerical answer. Simply solve the ODE to obtain the required function.
 
  • #9
What is ODE an abreviation for?
 
  • #10
toastie said:
What is ODE an abreviation for?
Ordinary Differential Equation, which I assume that you have studied already?
 
  • #11
okay i realize what ode stands for. I have tried that and I get x(t) = A*cos(angular velocity*t)*e^(-(beta)t). From here we are not really sure where to go. We know that we need to find the number of cycles but beyond that we are confused.
 
  • #12
toastie said:
okay i realize what ode stands for. I have tried that and I get x(t) = A*cos(angular velocity*t)*e^(-(beta)t). From here we are not really sure where to go. We know that we need to find the number of cycles but beyond that we are confused.
Good, the exponential decay implies that the amplitude decays at a constant rate.

Now, you want to find the time when the velocity is zero.
 
  • #13
Actually, [itex]x(t) = A\cos(\omega t) e^{-\beta t}[/itex] isn't a solution to the equation

[tex]m x''(t) - k x(t) - C = 0[/tex]

And anyway I don't think that's the proper equation for this situation. For one thing, the solution I get doesn't oscillate at all. Also, the direction of the constant force C switches back and forth every time the block reverses direction, and the equation as given doesn't account for that.

I don't mean to be a pain, but unless I'm missing something really stupidly simple, it does seem like something is wrong...
 
  • #14
if the velocity = 0 then I am left solving x(t) = Ae^(-(beta)*t)
However, I do not know what beta is. Should beta be the spring constant?
 
  • #15
diazona said:
Actually, [itex]x(t) = A\cos(\omega t) e^{-\beta t}[/itex] isn't a solution to the equation

[tex]m x''(t) - k x(t) - C = 0[/tex]
You are indeed correct, good catch!

toastie: You should note that your expression requires an additional constant term in order to satisfy the ODE. Apologies for not catching it sooner :redfaced:
diazona said:
And anyway I don't think that's the proper equation for this situation. For one thing, the solution I get doesn't oscillate at all.
That is the correct ODE for this situation. What solution do you obtain? It is possible that the oscillator is over-damped in which case no oscillations would occur, but I haven't checked.
diazona said:
Also, the direction of the constant force C switches back and forth every time the block reverses direction, and the equation as given doesn't account for that.
But we do account for the change of direction of C, the form of the ODE means that the constant force C is always acting against the motion of the mass.
 
  • #16
I get an exponential curve,
[tex]x(t) = c_1 e^{t\sqrt{k/m}} + c_2 e^{-t\sqrt{k/m}} - \frac{C}{k}[/tex]
both from Mathematica and by hand. I have to admit, I didn't think about the possibility of the oscillator being overdamped - although the OP does say the block oscillates about equilibrium, which suggests an underdamped oscillator.

And I really don't think the equation as is accounts for the change in direction of the force. Here's my reasoning: I would expect a force that opposes the motion of the mass to be represented by a velocity-dependent term, as in the damped harmonic oscillator,
[tex]m x'' + b x' + k x = 0[/tex]
Of course, that damping force depends not only on the direction of velocity, but on the magnitude of velocity - the faster the motion, the larger the force. In this case, the force is of constant magnitude, so we have to "normalize" that term, dividing out the magnitude of the velocity,
[tex]m x'' + b \frac{x'}{\vert x' \vert} + k x = 0[/tex]
As a check, this is undefined when [itex]x' = 0[/itex], which is what I would expect from a force of constant magnitude that opposes the motion: when there is no motion, the force has a nonzero magnitude but no direction to act in, so it is "physically undefined." ([itex]\mathrm{sign}\,{x'}[/itex] rather than [itex]x'/\vert x' \vert[/itex] would avoid this singularity)

In the equation we've been dealing with,
[tex]m x'' - k x - C = 0[/tex]
the term -C is of constant magnitude and constant sign, which represents a constant force of [itex]2.7 \mathrm{N}[/itex] acting in the negative x direction. That would just shift the equilibrium position of the spring; I can't see it accounting for a frictional force that always opposes the motion.
 
  • #17
Hmm, I must admit that I agree with you there. Before now I had just thought of this as 'standard' harmonic oscillator question, which of course it is not. The problem would also be straight forward if the damping term was velocity dependent, unfortunately, this is not the case, nor is the inhomogeneous term constant.

I'll also admit that the equation that we were originally working with is entirely incorrect as you point out. I should have read the OP fully.

So, let's take your proposed equation of motion (with the sign function) and see where we get:

[tex]x^{\prime\prime} + \frac{b}{m}\;\text{sign}\;x^\prime + \frac{k}{m}x = 0[/tex]

Solving ODE's with the sign function is messy, so I propose that we explicitly split the EOM into the three distinct regions:

[tex]\left.\;\;\; \begin{aligned} x^{\prime\prime} - \frac{b}{m} + \frac{k}{m}x = 0 \;\;\;,\;\;\; x^\prime > 0 \\
x^{\prime\prime} + \frac{k}{m}x = 0 \;\;\;,\;\;\; x^\prime = 0 \\
x^{\prime\prime} + \frac{b}{m} + \frac{k}{m}x = 0 \;\;\;,\;\;\; x^\prime < 0 \end{array}\right\}[/tex]

The equations in all three regions have the same homogeneous equation, with the corresponding indicial equation:

[tex]\lambda^2 + \frac{k}{m} = 0[/tex]

Hence, the homogeneous solution can be written:

[tex]x = A^\prime\cos\left(\sqrt{\frac{k}{m}}t\right) + B\sin\left(\sqrt{\frac{k}{m}}t\right)[/tex]

The particular integrals corresponding to regions one and three are simply additive constants ([itex]\mp \frac{b}{k}[/tex] respectively). For brevity, we recast the homogeneous solution exclusively in terms of cosine, with an arbitrary phase shift [itex]\phi[/itex]. Hence, the solution in equation region may be written thus:

[tex]\left.\;\;\; \begin{aligned} x = A\cos\left(\omega t -\phi\right)- \frac{b}{k} \;\;\;,\;\;\; x^\prime > 0 \\
x = A\cos\left(\omega t -\phi\right) \;\;\;,\;\;\; x^\prime = 0 \\
x = A\cos\left(\omega t -\phi\right) + \frac{b}{k} \;\;\;,\;\;\; x^\prime < 0 \end{array}\right\}[/tex].

With [itex]\omega = \sqrt{k/m}[/itex].

An important point to note here is that the above solutions do not represent a general solution for the displacement of the HO, rather they represent a family of solutions. The coefficient A is not constant throughout the whole motion, instead it is constant throughout each half oscillation.

Before we process to assembling the piecewise smooth solution, can I get an agreement from toastie and diazona that we are all on the same page?
 
Last edited:

1. What are oscillations about equilibrium?

Oscillations about equilibrium refer to the back and forth movement or vibration of a system around its stable point of balance, also known as equilibrium. This phenomenon is often observed in physical systems such as pendulums, springs, and waves.

2. What causes oscillations about equilibrium?

Oscillations about equilibrium are caused by a restoring force, which is a force that acts in the opposite direction of the displacement of the system from its equilibrium position. This force brings the system back towards equilibrium, resulting in the repetitive oscillation.

3. What is the relationship between frequency and period in oscillations about equilibrium?

The frequency of oscillations about equilibrium is the number of complete cycles or vibrations that occur per unit of time, while the period is the time it takes for one complete cycle or vibration to occur. The two are inversely proportional, meaning that as the frequency increases, the period decreases.

4. How do damping and driving forces affect oscillations about equilibrium?

Damping refers to the gradual decrease in the amplitude of oscillations over time due to the dissipation of energy. This can be caused by external forces such as friction or air resistance. On the other hand, driving forces, such as a periodic external force, can increase the amplitude of oscillations and maintain its motion.

5. What are some real-life examples of oscillations about equilibrium?

Oscillations about equilibrium can be observed in many natural and man-made systems. Some examples include the swinging of a pendulum, the vibrations of a guitar string, the motion of a car's suspension system, and the movement of a swing set. In nature, oscillations about equilibrium can also be seen in ocean waves, earthquakes, and the beating of a heart.

Similar threads

  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
738
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
872
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
579
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
939
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
31
Views
972
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
869
Back
Top