Active force of spring on mass (D'alemberts)

  • Thread starter Thread starter buildingblocs
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Mass Spring
AI Thread Summary
Eliminating mass m1 from the system affects the equations of motion, as the active forces from the spring remain relevant despite m1 being set to zero. The force of the spring does not depend on the mass, but the equations of motion do, since acceleration is force divided by mass. When m1 is removed, the system's dynamics change, leading to a simplified equation that still incorporates the effects of the spring. The remaining forces must still be considered, as they influence the overall mechanics of the system. Understanding this relationship is crucial for accurately analyzing the motion when m1 is absent.
buildingblocs
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
I am trying to understand the effect that eliminating the mass m1 (m1 = 0) has on the active forces (Fa). I have gone through a scenario where m1 is taken into consideration (refer to uploaded images). The active force on m1 is from the spring and does not have m1 in the expression (Fs1 = (l-r)k), so I did not think that there would be any change. However the set of D'alemberts reduces if m1 is eliminated, so how does active force from the spring effect the remaining equation of motion.

If more info or clearing up is required please do not hesitate to ask. Any help would be much appreciated.

Cheers.
 

Attachments

  • page1.jpg
    page1.jpg
    38.4 KB · Views: 440
  • page2.jpg
    page2.jpg
    36.2 KB · Views: 458
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you write it up there? The attachments are hard to read and their wrong orientation does not help either.

I don't understand what you want to test/show.
The force of the spring at a specific location does not depend on the mass, but the equations of motion certainly do because acceleration is force divided by mass. This also means you cannot expect a physical answer if you set the mass to zero. If you have a spring without mass attached, you still have the mass of the spring (which is often neglected).
 
Figure1.png

figure1.

In figure1, the generalised variables are q and θ, and there are two masses (mass of the spring is neglected). The active forces are Fa1 = Fspring1 (horizontal direction) and Fa2 = Fweight (vertical direction). Therefore it follows that there should be four parts for the equations of motion:
(Fa1 - m1a)∂r1/∂q + (Fa1 - m1a)∂r1/∂θ + (Fa2 - m2a)∂r2/∂q + (Fa2 - m2a)∂r2/∂θ = 0 [eq1]

this is simplified to:
(Fa1 - m1a)∂r1/∂q + (Fa2 - m2a)∂r2/∂q + (Fa2 - m2a)∂r2/∂θ = 0 [eq2]

as ∂r1/∂θ=0

My query is what happens when m1 is eliminated from the system (m1 = 0)
The is now two generalised variable and only one mass:
(Fa2 - m2a)∂r2/∂q + (Fa2 - m2a)∂r2/∂θ = 0
[eq3]


figure2.png

figure 2.

Now consider figure2 (Spring is removed and m1=0)
The equation of motion of system in figure2 is the same as that for eq3, where the spring was included. This intuitively does not appear correct, and I wish to understand how to take into account the effect of spring on the remaining system when m1 =0;
 
If you set m1 to zero, you cannot ignore the forces on r1 - they are still part of the mechanics. The only difference is the exact cancellation of the force from the spring and the horizontal component of the force in the beam (the experiment does not work properly with a string of course)
 
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...
Back
Top