A Question about Damped Oscillations

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter LagrangeEuler
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Damped Oscillations
AI Thread Summary
Damped oscillation equations, such as \(\ddot{x}+2\delta \dot{x}+\omega^2 x=0\), are commonly written with the term \(2\delta\) for simplification and clarity in solving the characteristic equation. This representation allows for easier manipulation of the roots, particularly when dealing with complex solutions. Different forms, including those using the damping coefficient \(\xi\) or quality factor \(Q\), are also prevalent, reflecting personal or disciplinary preferences in notation. Ultimately, these variations serve the same purpose: to describe the same physical system in a way that is convenient for the author or audience. The choice of notation can indicate the writer's background, whether in engineering, mathematics, or physics.
LagrangeEuler
Messages
711
Reaction score
22
Why are damped oscillation in many books written with equation
\ddot{x}+2\delta \dot{x}+\omega^2 x=0
##\delta## and ##\omega^2## are constants. Why ##2 \delta## many authors write in equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
LagrangeEuler said:
Why are damped oscillation in many books written with equation
\ddot{x}+2\delta \dot{x}+\omega^2 x=0
##\delta## and ##\omega^2## are constants. Why ##2 \delta## many authors write in equation?

Because the solution is a linear combination of exponentials e^{kt} where <br /> k^2 + 2\delta k + \omega^2 = (k + \delta)^2 + \omega^2 - \delta^2 = 0.
 
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
LagrangeEuler said:
Why 2δ many authors write in equation?
it becomes less messy.

The solutions to the characteristic equation ##r^2 + 2\delta r + \omega^2 = 0## becomes ##r = -\delta \pm \sqrt{\delta^2 - \omega^2}##

With characteristic equation ##r^2 + \delta r + \omega^2 = 0## solutions becomes ##r = -\dfrac{\delta}{2} \pm \sqrt{\dfrac{\delta^2}{4} - \omega^2}##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DaveE and SammyS
As others have said, it's just a way of simplifying notation.

However, in my experience, this is a less common way to simplify the problem/solution. There are two very common canonical forms for this problem as below:

1) Using the resonant (natural) frequency ##\omega_o## and the damping coefficient ##\xi##. So,
$$ \ddot{x}+2\xi \omega_o \dot{x}+\omega_o^2 x=0 $$

2) Using the resonant (natural) frequency ##\omega_o## and the quality factor ##Q##. So,
$$ \ddot{x}+\frac{1}{Q} \omega_o \dot{x}+\omega_o^2 x=0 $$

I suspect that this ##\delta## version is used because when roots of the characteristic equation are complex ##\delta## is the real part as shown previously. Which is also simple. They are all simple from some viewpoint. Usually that viewpoint is about a simple form of the solution, not so much what the original DE looks like.

The bigger point is that these are all just different representations of the same system. It's a personal choice, you could invent your own. Or, you may someday have to decipher someone else's version (like I just had to do with ##\delta##).

Wikipedia has a good page about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping

edit: for what it's worth, I like this form: ##\frac{\ddot{x}}{\omega_o^2}+\frac{1}{Q \omega_o} \dot{x}+x=0##
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes malawi_glenn
On a lighter note, you can tell the discipline of the writer by their notation (OK, only slightly better than chance).

- Mechanical engineers like ##\xi##. I can't fathom why. Since it's not nearly as pretty as...

- Q. Which means you're probably an EE. Although you would grudgingly acknowledge that they are really the same thing.

- If you use ##\xi## or Q but they are an element of a matrix in equations with only one derivative, then you are definitely, absolutely, a controls engineer. You worship the word "state space" as if it was Yahweh.

- If your equations are full of n, (n-1), and (n-2), but no derivatives, then you are a DSP control guy. You don't need ##\xi## or Q, everything is ##a_n##, ##a_{n-1}## and such. Half of you thought I should have said k, (k-1), and (k-2). Half of you have never touched the hardware you are controlling with your code. Time is just a constant called ##T##, which appears everywhere but is ignored.

- ##\delta##: probably a mathematician. Since you never see it in an engineering book.

- If an engineer doesn't even recognize it's a SHO equation, like this, then you are definitely a physicist. Although you use ALL of the other notations too, except the discrete time stuff.

- If you are a biologist, geologist, or chemist, then you don't care and aren't sure where your textbook is with this material. But you know you have it, you knew it, and could relearn it if you can't find a friend to do it for you.

But... It's all the same thing.
 
Last edited:
It's just convenience. If you write the equation of motion as
$$\ddot{x}+2 \delta \dot{x}+\omega^2 x=0, \qquad (1)$$
you can first make your life easier by substituting
$$x(t)=\exp(-\delta t) y(t),$$
because then
$$\dot{x}(t) = \exp(-\delta t) [-\delta y(t) + \dot{y}(t)],$$
$$\ddot{x}(t)=\exp(-\delta t) [\delta^2 y(t) -2 \delta \dot{y}(t)+\ddot{y}(t)].$$
Plugging this into (1) you get
$$\exp(-\delta t)[\delta^2 y(t)-2 \delta \dot{y}(t) + \ddot{y}(t)+2 \delta \dot{y}(t)-2\delta^2 y(t) + \omega^2 y(t)] = \exp(-\delta t)[\ddot{y}(t)+(\omega^2-\delta^2) y(t)]=0.$$
This means that
$$\ddot{y}(t)+(\omega^2-\delta^2) y(t)=0,$$
which is easily solved for the three cases ##\omega>\delta>0## ("underdamping"), ##\omega=\delta>0## ("critical damping"), and ##\delta>\omega>0## ("overdamping").
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
Back
Top