What Mistakes Are Made in Solving Damped Oscillator LCR Circuit Problems?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving damped oscillator LCR circuit problems, specifically addressing confusion in calculations for parts (a) and (b) of a homework assignment. In part (a), the user attempts to calculate the decay time but encounters an unsolvable equation due to the cosine term yielding -1. For part (b), the user calculates the period of oscillation based on the number of ringing cycles during a half-cycle of the square wave voltage, arriving at an angular frequency. Clarification is provided that the resistance cannot be estimated from the angular frequency alone, emphasizing that the exponential decay is crucial for determining resistance. The conversation highlights common mistakes in interpreting circuit behavior and the importance of focusing on the exponential envelope for decay calculations.
pondzo
Messages
168
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Damped oscillator.PNG


Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



For part (a) i did the following;
the time for it to decay to 40% is half the period of the square wave = 0.00002 seconds
So, 0.4qm = qm ## e^(\frac{-0.00002R}{2L})cos(25000*2*\pi*0.00002) ##
But the cosine term yields -1 which then makes the equation unsolvable, what am i doing wrong?

For part (b) I am a bit confused about the "17 ringing cylcles per half-cycle" but i tried ;

the time for one half oscillation of the square wave voltage is 0.5/(25E3) = 0.00002 seconds
during this time the LCR circuit rings 17 times so the period of oscillation of the LCR circuit is 0.00002/17 = 0.000001176
this corresponds to an angular freq of w = 5340707.511 rad.s^-1
Is this correct so far? and if so, does this mean there will be a different restance in part (b) than in part (a)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Don't involve the cosine. For the decay all we are concerned with is the exponential envelope.
 
Thank you, I should have realized that.
Do you know if what i did for part (b) is correct?
 
Your ##\mathrm{\omega}## looks right. You cannot estimate R from ##\textrm{ω}## because you don't know ##\mathbf{ω}## to the great precision necessary. The exponential decay is what allows you to determine R.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top