Proving System Decay Time: A Detailed Explanation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the decay time of a system to 1/e of its original value, approximately 36.8%. The user has consulted multiple textbooks but is struggling to derive the correct time from the equations of motion for a damped oscillator. Key points include the relationship between energy and displacement, where the energy envelope is linked to the displacement envelope through E = ½k x². The user is attempting to relate the decay time to the energy equation but is encountering difficulties in identifying the correct parameters and their implications. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities involved in understanding system decay in the context of classical mechanics and differential equations.
SteveDB
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
hi all.
Some clarification on this would be helpful to get me going in the correct direction.
For a specified system, I'm trying to prove that the time it takes for the system to decay to 1/e of its original value (which works out to ~36.8%), takes a certain amount of time. The actual values are unimportant but the process is.
I have gone through my classical mech book-- 4th ed of Marion Thornton, as well as my diff/eq book-- 5th ed of Nagle, Saff, Snider, and of course my waves and oscillation text-- A.P.French, and cannot decipher what seems-- or I thought would be-- a fairly straightforward problem.
I'm not schooled/skilled in latex, so please bear with my "hand version."
I've taken the time derivative of the energy, and get a m/s^3 function for my acceleration value. With the values for b, k, and m, I do not get the time I'm looking to prove.
m*x_dbldot + b*x_dot + k*x = 0
Where x(t) = (A*exp(omega*t) +B*exp(-omega*t)
The rate given for decay to 1/e is:
E/delta_E
Where delta_E is given by -b*E/(m*nu)
where nu is given by omega_o/2pi.
I've also tried the quality value Q for this. I know I'm missing something, but can't quite identify it.
A detailed explanation of this would be deeply appreciated.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not clear what you want ...

You know that for this viscous-damped oscillator
the envelope function is exponential, and you
even have the right exponent!

You already have t in the envelope function.

OK, did you forget that the E envelope
and the x-envelope are related by E = ½k x^2 ?

for reasonably small values of "b", the solution is
x approx. A exp(-omega*t)*sin(w_o*t) ,
because the natural frequency isn't changed much.

You don't want exponential growth curve, do you?
(I mean, set your A=0 and rename B=Amplitude)
 
that's part of what I meant when I said that I'd taken the time derivative of the energy equation.
E= m/2 (x_dot)^2 + k/2 *x^2
Based on my energy of the system, I need to then proof that the time only takes a certain amount of time to decay to 1/e.
E(t)= E(0)/e
Sounds like I'm not the only one that's struggling with the decay function.
I don't know how to explain it any better. that's part of what's confusing me, and why I posted.
Thanks.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top