Mass on a spring and GravityPain in the neck

  • Thread starter Thread starter saltrock
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Spring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the acceleration due to gravity (g) using a mass-spring system. The original poster is trying to understand the relationship between the mass on a spring and gravity, particularly through the formula for the period of oscillation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the forces acting on the mass, including gravitational force and the spring's restoring force. Questions arise about the equilibrium position and the relationship between the spring constant (k) and gravity.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring various interpretations of the problem, with some providing clarifications on the forces involved and the conditions for equilibrium. There is an ongoing dialogue about how to experimentally determine the values needed to calculate g, with suggestions for alternative methods to measure k.

Contextual Notes

The original poster is limited to using a stopwatch and a millimeter rule, which raises questions about how to measure the necessary parameters for the calculations. There is also a mention of a common approach to measure k when g is assumed known, highlighting the constraints of the current situation.

saltrock
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
How can the gravity of Earth be determined using mass ona spring?
Myworking:T=2pie squarerook of m/k
There no g in the question above.I have spend ages trying to figure out the link between the gravity and the mass on spring.
If you can give me some hint then i'l be able to work it out.
Any help would highly be appriciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What pulls the mass downward? Gravity does. What restoring force acts on the mass, trying to pull it back up to its equilibrium position? The spring restoring force. If the spring is "Hookian", then this restoring force obey's Hooke's law: F = -ky. The displacement y from the equilibrium position is downward, and the farther down gravity pulls the mass, the stronger the restoring force (upward, because of the negative sign) becomes. The equilibrium position occurs when the two forces are equal (gravity has pulled the mass down far enough that the restoring force is now strong enough to exactly counteract gravity). The mass will hang suspended at this elongation y. That is all you need to answer this problem (equate the forces). If I put this into equation form for you, I'd be giving away the answer (in fact, I already have :wink: ).
 
that means F=Kx=g.So,i have got to find Kx and that will give me the gravity right??Extension at equilibrium position is zero so K times o gives me 0 gravity...so i am not gettin any value fo gravity>>>..can you make me more clear please..I know i am a bit thick..;)
 
Just remember to apply Newton second law. Which states that SUM F = ma.
Combining Hooke's law F = -kx and Newton law you can get your acceleration or in this case the gravity.
 
saltrock said:
that means F=Kx=g.

You might want to rethink that. Is g a force?

saltrock said:
So,i have got to find Kx and that will give me the gravity right??Extension at equilibrium position is zero so K times o gives me 0 gravity...so i am not gettin any value fo gravity>>>..can you make me more clear please..I know i am a bit thick..;)

We are talking about a mass and spring that are suspended vertically. that's why I called the restoring force ky instead of kx. I guess I should have stated that clearly from the beginning my first post, although that would have been answering the question for you, of how to measure the value of g using this apparatus. (I also thought it was obvious, because if the mass/spring system were horizontal...why would gravity be affecting the length of the spring?) ...

I see the problem...I used the word "equilibrium" in my post to mean both the unstretched position, and later on to mean the position at which there was equilibrium between the two forces. Notice that this second, new, "equilibrium" extension of the spring is no longer "zero" ie. unstretched. On the contrary...it has some finite extension. Does that clear things up?
 
Last edited:
I sort of like have understood it..can you please give me a weblink that clearly explains this process please.Any help would highly be appriciated
 
I really don't think you need a weblink for this man...it's really simple. I'll take one last stab at explaining...

1. Hang mass on a spring from the ceiling.

2. There are TWO forces acting on it:
i) gravity pulls it down -- it is falling
ii) the spring is trying to pull it back up.

3. When the two forces are equal, the mass will come to a rest.

4. How do we know when the two forces are equal?
i) the gravitational force is constant and equal to the mass' weight,which is mass, m, multiplied by acceleration due to gravity: g. -->mg

ii) the spring restoring force is NOT constant. it gets stronger the more the spring is stretched. In other words it is proportional to the distance the spring has been stretched from its unstretched length. Let's call this 'y' The force is --> -ky

5. So, based on #3, all you have to do is equate the forces and solve for g.
 
so,g=-ky/m but i don't know the values for k and m and i am only allowed to use a stopwatch,millimetre rule and apparatus for supporting the spring.
 
A problem I hadn't considered, but not to worry: a minor one.

Normally, the experiment I have just described is put forward as a means of measuring 'k' when g is assumed to be known beforehand.

You know neither g nor k. So what to do? First: measure k experimentally by some other method. Then use its value in the experiment I just described to get g.

What other method? Well, what else can we do with a mass-spring system other than hang it vertically? Well, we could set it oscillating horizontally in simple harmonic motion, just as you had intended orginially. If you do so, I think you will find that there is something you wrote in your very first post that you could measure experimentally. It wouldn't give separate values for m and k necessarily, but it would allow you to take care of both. :wink:

Sorry for not thinking about this before...
 
  • #10
T=2piesq.root of m over k
Regrranging this will give me k=2pieM/t^2

g=-kx/m
Putting the value of K in the above equation will give me

g=-4Pie^2x/T^2

I can measure T and i got rid of K and m(i didnt know what the mass was as i wasnt allowed to use any equipment to measure mass) :)

Thanks a lot cepheid for helping me out and responding really quickly.Cheers
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
11K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K