Why Do Harmonic Motion Equations Differ Across Sources?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the differences in equations describing harmonic motion, particularly focusing on the underdamped and overdamped cases. Participants explore the implications of different notations and formulations found in various sources, aiming to understand the physical significance of the terms involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a familiar equation for the position of an underdamped harmonic oscillator and contrasts it with an alternative equation from Wolfram, highlighting differences in notation and terms.
  • Another participant suggests that the equations are equivalent and provides a hint involving a trigonometric identity to reconcile the differences.
  • There is a discussion about the physical representation of the two terms in the equations, with one participant suggesting they account for amplitude and phase.
  • Questions arise regarding the overdamped case, specifically about the significance of having two terms in the equation and how they relate to the physical behavior of the system.
  • A later reply mentions that in certain initial conditions, the coefficients A and B can be equal and opposite, leading to a simplification that obscures the two-term structure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of the multiple terms in the equations and whether they represent distinct physical phenomena. Some agree on the equivalence of the equations, while others remain uncertain about the implications of the two terms in the overdamped case.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the conditions under which the equations apply, particularly concerning the damping ratio and initial conditions. The discussion also highlights the dependence on notation and the interpretation of terms in the equations.

Cog77
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I was hoping that someone could explain why these different equations can be found from different sources please.

The time dependent position, x(t), of an underdamped harmonic oscillator is given by:

[itex]x(t)=e^{-\gamma t}acos(\omega_{1}t-\alpha)[/itex]

where [itex]\gamma[/itex] is the damping coefficient, and [itex]\omega_{1}[/itex] is the frequency of the damped oscillator. This is the equation I am familiar with and can be found in many explanations of harmonic oscillators, e.g. here.

In contrast, Wolfram gives the following equation (note that this is copied from their website, and it uses different notation to the equation above. In particular [itex]\gamma[/itex] is NOT the damping coefficient):

[itex]x(t)=e^{-\frac{\beta t}{2}}[Acos(\gamma t)+Bsin(\gamma t)][/itex]

I believe that changing this equation to use the same notation as the first thing I posted gives this:

[itex]x(t)=e^{-\gamma t}[Acos(\omega_{1}t)+Bsin(\omega_{1}t)][/itex]


So here is what I'd like to understand:

1) Why are these different? I tried to see if there was a case when [itex]A>>B[/itex], which I found happens if the initial velocity is zero, [itex]\dot{x}(0)=0[/itex], and [itex]\zeta<<\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[/itex]. Where [itex]\zeta[/itex] is the damping ratio. In other words, when there is very little damping the Wolfram equation reduces to the shorter equation. Is that correct?

2) Whether or not that's correct, I don't understand why there would sometimes be two terms in the equation. What does that physically represent?

3) I actually started looking at this after getting confused about the overdamped case in a similar way. It also has two terms, and I believe that it reduces to a single term when there is a lot of damping ([itex]\zeta>>1[/itex]). Again, what does it physically mean when there are two terms? Although hopefully understanding one case will lead to an understanding of both, so maybe this question is redundant.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Cog77! Welcome to PF! :smile:
Cog77 said:
[itex]x(t)=e^{-\gamma t}acos(\omega_{1}t-\alpha)[/itex]

[itex]x(t)=e^{-\gamma t}[Acos(\omega_{1}t)+Bsin(\omega_{1}t)][/itex]

A = acosα, B = asinα :wink:
 
All the equations are equivalent to each other
 
Hint: to your first equation, apply the trig identity

cos (u - v) = cos u cos v + sin u sin v
 
Aah thanks guys! Should have spotted that...

So physically the two terms account for the amplitude and the phase?

What about the overdamped case?

[itex]x(t)=Ae^{r_{-}t}+Be^{r_{+}t}[/itex]

with

[itex]r_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2}-\beta\pm\sqrt{\beta^{2}-4\omega_{0}^{2}}[/itex]

Does the fact that the expression contains faster and slower decaying terms mean something physically? This was where my confusion originally came from as I always assumed there was just a single exponential term in the overdamped case.
 
An intriguing question. I can't think of any significance in there being a fast term and a slow term, but would love to be shown to be missing something.

Instead, I can, perhaps remove some of the motivation for the search. It is easy to show that in the case when the body is displaced and released from rest, A and B are equal and opposite. In that when you pull out [itex]e^{- \frac{\beta t}{2}}[/itex] as a factor you're left with a multiplied cosh function. So it doesn't look like two added terms any longer!

This is somewhat similar to writing [itex]A\ \mbox {cos}\ \omega t + B\ \mbox {sin}\ \omega t[/itex] as [itex]a\ \mbox {cos}\ (\omega t + \epsilon)[/itex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
974
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K