Equation of motion of a mass-spring system

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on deriving the equation of motion for a mass-spring system without using the energy method. The correct form of the equation is mx'' + kx = 0, where the acceleration x'' must be negative when the displacement x is positive, reflecting the restoring force of the spring. A misunderstanding arises when considering the signs of the forces and acceleration; the equation should not have a negative sign in front of mx''. The correct application of Newton's second law, F = ma, is emphasized, ensuring that the direction of acceleration aligns with the force exerted by the spring. Clarification provided in the discussion resolves the confusion regarding the signs in the equation.
mech-eng
Messages
825
Reaction score
13
hi, all. I am trying to derive the equation of motion of a mass spring system without using the
energy method but I am wrong somewhere and I can't find it, can you help me find where I am
wrong. Equation of motion of a simple mass spring system is indeed mx''+kx=0 but here I am
thinking that when we pull the mass, motion arises from the spring force which is trying to bring back the mass and it is -kx due to our choice of negative direction but when the force is negative,
i.e -kx, the acceleration x'' must also be negative because they are in the same direction and sense. Here their sense both are negative. So equation should be -mx''=-kx(sum of forces equal mass product acceleration) and thus -mx''+kx=0 Can you explain me where I am wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mech-eng said:
i.e -kx, the acceleration x'' must also be negative because they are in the same direction and sense.
Exactly. Therefore, writing
$$
\ddot{x} = \frac{-k x}{m}
$$
ensures that the acceleration ##\ddot{x}## is negative when the displacement ##x## is postive. If you add a minus sign in front of ##m \ddot{x}##, you get a positive acceleration for a positive displacement.
 
I should also add that the base formula is ##F=ma##. Once you have figured out what ##F## is, the equation must be applied directly, without modifying the ##ma## part.
 
DrClaude said:
Exactly. Therefore, writing
$$
\ddot{x} = \frac{-k x}{m}
$$
ensures that the acceleration ##\ddot{x}## is negative when the displacement ##x## is postive. If you add a minus sign in front of ##m \ddot{x}##, you get a positive acceleration for a positive displacement.

It is very clear, thanks a lot.
 
Last edited:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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

Back
Top