Spring Force Gauge: Is It Possible to Use a Spring Not Obeying Hooke's Law?

AI Thread Summary
Using a spring that does not obey Hooke's Law as a force gauge is possible if the relationship between force and displacement is known, as this allows for accurate measurements despite non-linear behavior. For instance, if the force varies with the square of the displacement, the scale will reflect this non-linear relationship. Regarding the inclined plane scenario, once a block begins to move, it will continue moving until an obstacle halts it, assuming the angle remains constant. To measure the kinetic friction coefficient using only the inclined plane, one can analyze the forces acting on the block as it moves down the incline. Understanding these principles is essential for accurate measurements in both scenarios.
Crusher
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to use a spring which does not obey hooke's law as a force gauge? If so, how?

also

If you incline the plane so that the block starts to move do you expect it to slow down and stop? If so why? If not, what do you expect? How can you measure the kintetic friction coefficient using the inclined plane only?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hooke's law is approximation that states that there is linear relationship between force and displacement. In order to measure the force through the displacement, you have to know the law with which force is related to that displacement (the extension of that spring).
For example if the spring has characteristic where the force goes with the square of the displacement then the spaces in your scale won't be equal but will be getting bigger according to the square rule.
So in short yes if you know the law force-displacement.

If the block starts to move by its one, then it will continue to move until some obstacle stops it, assume the angle is not changing, so I won't expect it to stop.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Back
Top