Resonance in a damped triangular potential well

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a damped triangular potential well where a mass bounces elastically while experiencing air friction. The user explores the effects of a periodic driving force, specifically a sawtooth profile, to achieve high amplitude oscillations for a particular mass while minimally affecting others. Calculations indicate that the driving force must be synchronized with the bouncing events, leading to a specific relationship between force, mass, and oscillation amplitude. Concerns are raised about the robustness of this system in realistic experiments and the absence of certain terms in the proposed equations of motion. The conversation highlights the complexities of modeling the particle's behavior under these conditions.
Irid
Messages
207
Reaction score
1
I have a potential well which is an infinite wall for x<0 and a linear slope for x>0. There is damping proportional to velocity. Basically, it's a ball bouncing elastically off the ground and with air friction included. I wonder if there is some periodic driving force which will cause one particular mass to bounce with a high amplitude and only slightly perturbe all the other masses (kind of a pseudo-resonance?).
My first attempt was to try a sawtooth profile force. The equation of motion is thus
<br /> m\ddot{x} = -k(u+\dot{x}) + f(T/2-t)<br />
where k and u are constants, T is the period of the driving force and fT/2 is the maximum force. The solution is parabolic in time. I figured that the driving force will sync up with bouncing events iff
<br /> f = \frac{uk^2}{m}<br />
and so, if I could produce a force with such a slope, only a very particular mass m will oscillate with a high amplitude (which itself depends on the period
<br /> x_0 = \frac{kuT^2}{8m}<br />
).
To sum up, my line of thought is this: I fix the slope f according to the parameters of my system. The period and driving force amplitude are then determined by my choice of oscillation amplitude x_0.
Could you verify these calculations? Also, would the particle readily sync up with the driving force? Would this system be robust enough to work in a realistic experiment with various perturbations etc.? What would be the equivalent of the quality factor?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand your equation. The periodicity you're searching for arises from the regular impulse the ball receives during its elastic collision with the ground, but I can't find a corresponding term in your equation of motion. I also don't believe the solution to an equation modelling a particle moving due to its own weight and air resistance is parabolic.
 
The equation is valid only for x>0. I don't include the delta-like force of the surface reaction, i just assume that whenever the particle arrives at x=0, its speed flips sign. My equation of motion is
<br /> x(t) = At^2 + Bt<br />
so the particle starts out at x=0 with speed B, moves up, comes down to x=0 at time T=-B/A with speed -B, and then flips back to the initial condition
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top