I think, in part d) of the question the initial conditions are given should be other way around u_t(x,0)=0 and vice versa. Do you agree? With the current initial conditions I am stuck. However, with the initial conditions given I can find d'Alembert's solution but that’s not the question is asking.

(edited 11 months ago)

Original post by Shaonx

I think, in part d) of the question the initial conditions are given should be other way around u_t(x,0)=0 and vice versa. Do you agree? With the current initial conditions I am stuck. However, with the initial conditions given I can find d'Alembert's solution but that’s not the question is asking.

There's no reason to think that. The string starts from equilibrium having been struck. Further the V in u_t suggests velocity, so think things are correct as they are.

Original post by RichE

There's no reason to think that. The string starts from equilibrium having been struck. Further the V in u_t suggests velocity, so think things are correct as they are.

I applied the first initial condition and it got rid of one of the constant. But with the 2nd condition i am not sure what to do. Any suggestions?

Original post by Shaonx

I applied the first initial condition and it got rid of one of the constant. But with the 2nd condition i am not sure what to do. Any suggestions?

Isn't the rest just Fourier analysis? Sorry off to bed now.

Original post by Shaonx

I applied the first initial condition and it got rid of one of the constant. But with the 2nd condition i am not sure what to do. Any suggestions?

As @RichE says, you need Fourier analysis knowledge to figure that out.

See below. If you have found Fourier Series before then this should feel familiar.

Original post by RDKGames

As @RichE says, you need Fourier analysis knowledge to figure that out.

See below. If you have found Fourier Series before then this should feel familiar.

See below. If you have found Fourier Series before then this should feel familiar.

Please see my attempt below and tell me how to proceed from there onwards.

Original post by RichE

Have you met Fourier series? If so, RDK gave you the integrals to work out. If not then you shouldn't be attempting this question.

Yes I know the Fourier series, but after I put the initial condition in I get the sine Fourier series, but my initial condition is in terms of cos thus I am confused.

Original post by Shaonx

Yes I know the Fourier series, but after I put the initial condition in I get the sine Fourier series, but my initial condition is in terms of cos thus I am confused.

It's just another function f. It could be the exponential or a polynomial. Any continuous function on that interval has a Fourier sine series. Just work out the requisite integrals that RDK posted earlier.

Original post by Shaonx

Yes I know the Fourier series, but after I put the initial condition in I get the sine Fourier series, but my initial condition is in terms of cos thus I am confused.

As RichE says, just because your initial condition is written in terms of cos doesn't mean it doesn't have a sine Fourier series.

I'd also point out that the actual initial condition is zero outside of |x-c|<h/2. Your analysis needs to account for this.

- PDEs
- PDE: Heat equation in cylindrical coordinates
- How to solve this standing wave problem?
- Ball Dropped Onto Spring
- Projectile on a string physics question
- Spring Pick-up
- Physics question ripples
- A level physics waves question
- Snell’s Law AQA A-Level Physics
- IGCSE Edexcel Physics Paper 1 conversation
- Isaac physics
- AQA GCSE Physics Paper 2 (Higher Tier triple) 8463/2H - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- ..
- OCR A A-level Physics Exploring Physics (H556/02) - 6th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE Physics Paper 2 (Higher Combined) 8464/2H - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Eduqas A-Level Physics Paper 3 - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- Approaching a nucleus, physics question
- Bonn vs Oxford vs Cambridge vs UPenn Mathematics Masters
- Igcse physics paper 1 june 2023 edexcel | exam chat
- Variable Acceleration

Latest

Trending