Confusion about springs and hooke's law

AI Thread Summary
To stretch a spring, work must be done by applying equal and opposite forces to both ends, with one end held stationary. Hooke's Law, represented by F=kx, applies to the displacement of the spring from its unstressed length, where x is the relative displacement between the ends. If only one end is pulled, the spring accelerates unless the other end is fixed, resulting in zero net force. The restoring force generated by the spring acts at both ends, ensuring that the force exerted on the stationary end equals the negative of the force applied to the moving end. Understanding this relationship clarifies how work is done on the spring during stretching.
ehabmozart
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
There is a statement in my book i can't really understand. "To stretch a spring, we must do work. We apply equal and opposite forces to the ends of a spring and gradually increase the forces. We hold the left end stationary, so the force we apply at this end does no work.The force at the moving end does do work" ... How is it we apply force on both ends of a spring. Doesn't hook's law apply for the end we actually stretch. F=kx? Kindly Clarify.. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you apply force to only one end of the spring, the entire spring will simply accelerate. F=ma still works. If you want to stretch or compress the spring, something or someone must hold the other end of the spring stationary. In other words, the net force on the spring needs to be zero.
 
But then if it is stationary, how does the spring produce a force on the wall = -Fx??
 
Because x is not just displacement of an end point. It's displacement relative to the other end of the spring. If you displace one end by x, it's the same as displacing the other end by -x in terms of Hooke's Law.
 
Think of the x in Hooke's law as the amount by which the spring is stretched (from its unstretched length). As K^2 explains, the restoring force is exerted at both ends of the spring.
 
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
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Back
Top