Can the system

be solved explicitly? Where , and are constants and the functions and depend only on

Printable View

- Jul 8th 2010, 01:10 PMfobos3Nonlinear System of two ODEs
Can the system

be solved explicitly? Where , and are constants and the functions and depend only on - Jul 8th 2010, 01:32 PMAckbeet
You can integrate once immediately by reducing the order. You have no x(t)'s or y(t)'s in there. Once you do that, you might be able to use a polar coordinate transformation to simplify.

- Jul 8th 2010, 01:56 PMAckbeet
Are you allowed to use a small-angle approximation?

- Jul 8th 2010, 02:14 PMAckbeet
Actually, you don't have to use small-angle approximation. The equations separate out, and you get two separated first-order linear equations. Just solve for the square roots and equate.

- Jul 8th 2010, 03:40 PMfobos3
- Jul 8th 2010, 04:34 PMAckbeet
I'm not sure where that integral came from. Your substitution is fine. I would write out your DE's again with that substitution. What do you get?

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:12 PMfobos3
For the first equation we have

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:13 PMAckbeet
I'm not sure I'd be in such a rush to integrate just yet. I like your first equation. What's the analog of that for the second equation?

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:15 PMfobos3
It's

and the first one is

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:18 PMAckbeet
Now, what if you were to solve both equations for the square roots: what would you get?

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:23 PMfobos3
- Jul 8th 2010, 05:26 PMfobos3
I can get it down to

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:27 PMAckbeet
I can see what you did there. Multiplying both equations by what you need in order to get the same thing on the RHS's. That's fine. Now what if you were to divide the entire equation by uv?

[Edit]: I see you anticipated me. Excellent. What can you say now? - Jul 8th 2010, 05:34 PMfobos3
becomes

- Jul 8th 2010, 05:37 PMAckbeet
Right. Now what can you say about that equation?