shaneo Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I'm trying to use the vibrational frequency equation to calculate the frequency constant, but i can't seem to rearrange it correctly!Here is the method i used: v = 1/2π x √k_{f }/ mtherefore: v/1/2π = √k_{f }/ m (v/1/2π)^{2 }= k_{f }/ m (v/1/2π)^{2} x m = k_{f}Can someone please pick a hole in my rearranging, because i know the actual rearranged equation and this is not it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

mathematic Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Show us the actual equation. Your presentation has some ambiguity. √k_{f }/ m =? √(k_{f }/ m) or =? (√k_{f })/m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

shaneo Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 I don't think I understand your question but this is the starting equation...v = (1/2π) x √k_{f }/ m does that make more sense?in brackets is 1 divided by 2 pi the square root encompasses the kf and the m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

studiot Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 [math]v = \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\frac{{\sqrt {{k_f}} }}{m}[/math]cross multiply[math]2\pi mv = \sqrt {{k_f}} [/math]square both sides[math]{\left( {2\pi mv} \right)^2} = {k_f}[/math]can you complete it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

imatfaal Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 ....the square root encompasses the kf and the m [math]v = \frac{1}{{2\pi }}\frac{{\sqrt {{k_f}} }}{m}[/math] Shaneo - this is why we asked for clarity, it seems that Studiot might have read your equation one way where I would read it another. Maths is unambiguous - text is not The equation I know in this situation is this (it is mu not m - ie reduced mass rather than mass) [math]v = \frac{1}{2\pi}\sqrt{\frac{k_f}{\mu}}[/math] We have latex tags (not great implementation admittedly) and you can also upload pictures. On your rearrangement - my first comment would be "the bottom of the bottom to the top". You are dividing by a fraction - switch the bottom of the divider up to the top. Otherwise I think it looks fine - what do you think it should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

shaneo Posted May 26, 2014 Author Share Posted May 26, 2014 Thanks for the help.I found out my mistake and I now find it easier to treat the equation in a linear format. i.e. v= 1 ÷ 2 pi . Instead of saying v = 1/2pi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

studiot Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the help. I found out my mistake and I now find it easier to treat the equation in a linear format. i.e. v= 1 ÷ 2 pi . Instead of saying v = 1/2pi. Has this really made it any clearer? I recommend using brackets as shown by mathematic in post#2. Then there can be no ambiguity. But thank you for coming back to us with some feedback. Don't hesitate to post more questions in future. Edited May 26, 2014 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...

## Recommended Posts

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account## Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now