What went wrong with my solution for a damped mass spring system?

FHamster
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
So the equation is x'' + 10x' + 64x = 0
x(0) = 1
x'(0) = 0
I get general solution of e^(-5t)(c1*cos(6.245t) + c2sin(6.245t) )
From there I get e^(-5t)cos(6.245t)+5e^(-5t)sin(6.245t)
but it wrong. What the gerbils am I doing wrong?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi FHamster! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)
FHamster said:
So the equation is x'' + 10x' + 64x = 0
x(0) = 1
x'(0) = 0

From there I get e^(-5t)cos(6.245t)+5e^(-5t)sin(6.245t)
but it wrong. What the gerbils am I doing wrong?

(do hamsters not like gerbils? :biggrin:)

erm :redface: … haven't you left out a 6.245 ? :wink:
 
FHamster said:
So the equation is x'' + 10x' + 64x = 0
x(0) = 1
x'(0) = 0
I get general solution of e^(-5t)(c1*cos(6.245t) + c2sin(6.245t) )
From there I get e^(-5t)cos(6.245t)+5e^(-5t)sin(6.245t)
but it wrong. What the gerbils am I doing wrong?

Thanks
If y= e^{5t}(c_1cos(6.245t)+ c_2sin(6.245t))
then y(0)= e^0 (c_1 cos(0)+ c_2 sin(0))= c_1= 1 so you have that coefficient right.

y'= 5e^{5t}(c_1 cos(6.245t)+ c_2 sin(6.245t))+ e^{5t}(-6.245 sin(6.245 t)+6.245cos(6.245t))

y'(0)= 5e^0(c_1 cos(0)+ c_2 sin(0))+ e^0(-6.245c_1 sin(0)+ 6.245c_2 cos(0))
y'(0)= 5(c_1)+ (1)(6.245c_2)= 11.245
Knowing that c_1= 1, solve for c_2.
 


Thanks, following some of these guidelines and doing some recalcumacations. I managed to get it right

tiny-tim said:
Hi FHamster! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)


(do hamsters not like gerbils? :biggrin:)

erm :redface: … haven't you left out a 6.245 ? :wink:



Hamsters are the masterrace.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top