How can the period of oscillation be determined using energy considerations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the period of oscillation using energy considerations. A participant expresses confusion about deriving the period from energy principles, questioning whether the standard formula 2π√(m/k) is merely an approximation. They suggest that energy considerations might be relevant but are unsure how to apply them. Another participant offers insights on using known variables from previous parts of the problem to facilitate the integration process. The conversation highlights the importance of kinetic and potential energy expressions in deriving the period of oscillation.
MFAHH
Messages
32
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Attached

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I've managed to do parts i) and ii) with not much bother. But as for iii) then I haven't a clue how to show that the period of oscillation is given by that. I've always been under the impression it is simply given by 2pi*sqrt(m/k), but am now wondering whether that was just an approximation in itself. It's clear that the limits would be xb and xa as they define the entire range of the object's motion in the potential curve.

I have a feeling energy considerations may play a part but am not sure how to go about it.
 

Attachments

  • Period.JPG
    Period.JPG
    37.7 KB · Views: 479
Physics news on Phys.org
What did you find in part ii) ? Can you use that in part III ?
 
BvU said:
What did you find in part ii) ? Can you use that in part III ?

Thanks for the reply. I've attached what I got for ii.
 

Attachments

  • 10961768_1065894560094662_1456386580_n.jpg
    10961768_1065894560094662_1456386580_n.jpg
    53.8 KB · Views: 474
I see a ##\dot{..}##KE = ... where it seems you already know initial position and speed. Your integrand is 2/v(t) ? If you also know x(t) then you can change integration variable to t, right ?
I don't see the equation of motion, or how you derived these KE and PE expressions, though.
 
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 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
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...
Back
Top