Talk:Simple harmonic motion: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{physics|class=B|importance=high}} |
{{physics|class=B|importance=high}} |
||
== Slight change in formula == |
|||
Hi...I'm new to editing wikipedia.....pardon me if something is wrong |
|||
I changed reference 1 because of incorrect furmula stated there |
|||
The original formula is Cosx = Sin (x-pi/2) which is wrong. |
|||
The correct formula is Cosx = Sin (pi/2-x) |
|||
== Possible Vandalism == |
== Possible Vandalism == |
Revision as of 17:26, 31 March 2010
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Physics B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
Slight change in formula
Hi...I'm new to editing wikipedia.....pardon me if something is wrong I changed reference 1 because of incorrect furmula stated there The original formula is Cosx = Sin (x-pi/2) which is wrong. The correct formula is Cosx = Sin (pi/2-x)
Possible Vandalism
I failed to log in before jumping into repairing a severe error in the Useful Formulas section. Someone had written the equation f=A/t, where they had listed t as the period, even though T was already serving that purpose. This equation is faulty for two reasons: First, frequency is independent of amplitude for simple harmonic motion. Second, the units in that equation don't even match. I see some records of vandalism, perhaps this article should be edit-restricted.
- I also pasted in statements in both the mass/spring and pendulum sections just after T is derived asserting that the equations dictate that period is independent of amplitude (and of gravity for mass/spring, and of mass for pendula).
--Tibbets74 (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
BAD
Simple Harmonic Motion is the bomb. IT GOES BOOOM!
Great article! Very comprehensible! I like the example with the record turntable.
A pendulum DOESN'T exhibit simple harmonic motion, only periodic motion. The acceleration towards the center depends on the sine of the distance from equilibrium rather than the distance itself. I've never heard of this 'pulsation' explanation (I think you mean period)...
(The sentence in the article in question is best interpreted to mean that a pendulum approximates simple harmonic motion when the angles are small)
SHM points to this article. However, shm also stands for "shared memory" in computer science.
The formula for frequency is never directly and simply stated, which can be confusing. It can be solved for from the formula for omega and the information given, or from the formula for period and the information given, but I believe it is the article's role to show the formula directly. A discussion on what omega, in this context, really means, would also be useful. I do not know myself, and therefore cannot write it, but I am immensely curious.
IMO it would be better to define 2*pi*f / 2*pi/T as omega early on, then use it in the general equations x(t) and v(t), making them a bit easier to read. Any objections? 80.169.64.22 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Some changes
This got too long to put in an edit summary, so the summary is here instead.
- Took the above suggestions to explain frequency early on and to use angular frequency more extensively.
- Replaced gamma with delta, which is a far more common symbol for the phase (I've never actually seen gamma used).
- Actually, all the books and references I've seen have used Phi for the phase shift. Delta, I thought, was used more for differentials and displacement (i.e. "Change in..."). Andrew (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The bit about energy was moved from the "Mathematics" section to the "Realisations" section, and removed unnecessary qualifiers. Plus, A in that expression is the amplitude, not the mean displacement (which is zero).
- Surely there's a better word to use than "realisation" -- any suggestions?
- There is no exact solution to the swinging pendulum: it gives an elliptic integral.
Anarchic Fox 22:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Possible Changes
I would suggest using the definition of simple harmonic motion as acceleration proportional to extension from equilibrium position as a starting point in order to DERIVE that x = asin(omega.t+delta). This seems more logical rather than seemingly plucking that equation from nowhere; it is much easier to understand the acceleration definition and then integrate to get position, although of course the mathematics are a little more taxing. Anyone object? Rudipoo 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Simple harmonic motion occasionally appears in situations where acceleration is not needed for the discussion... for instance in circular motion. I don't object to acceleration as a starting point, though. Anarchic Fox 03:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Might it be an idea to remove the comma out of the acceleration equation - it currently looks like . I personally think it should not have the comma there, as the two terms are multiplied so can be written one after the other, i.e. . The6thhiddenimage (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
An addition
This article is good but can someone please label all the variables and what each means because just giving the equation without stating what each variable means or defines is very confusing and pointless for an encyclopedia to publish or show so others can learn when the people reading the formulas have no idea what the variables stand for. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.14.126 (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Formulae
Please be careful. Earlier the differentiation of cosά was shown to be sinά whereas it actually is -sinά. - Manik (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
!It would be nice if established standard notations are used rather than abruptly using english characters to denote quantites like frequency, just for the sake of convenience. -Manik (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Topic is introduced at too technical a level
This article introduces the subject at too technical a level. SHM is an important introductory kinematic concept and is introduced in elementary algebra classes as the projection on the coordinate axes of an object moving in a circle about the origin, long before harmonic oscillators and Newton's equations. In Wikipedia, SHM is referenced in many basic articles that don't have anything directly to do with harmonic oscillators, such as Phase (waves), Angular frequency, Wave, Sine wave, Curve, Lissajous curve, Motion (physics), Vibration, Eccentric (mechanism), Crank, Reciprocating motion, Time in physics, Trigonometric functions, and Exponential function. I don't object to including explanation of harmonic oscillators as the ultimate source of SHM, but the article needs to start with a simpler explanation of SHM as a function of circular motion, and detailed definition of the three parameters in the SHM expression: amplitude, frequency, and phase. We technical editors need to recall our own school days, and remember that the vast majority of readers of this page are nontechnical people who merely want the simplest, most elementary explanation of SHM. --ChetvornoTALK 07:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)