Change in length of wire after adding a load

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the ambiguity in calculating the change in length of a wire under load. It questions why the original length is taken as 1.8m despite a load being present. The consensus is that if a small weight was already hanging, its effect on the overall length would be negligible, allowing the original length to remain effectively 1.8m for calculations. The principle of linear superposition in Hooke's law is emphasized, indicating that small strains can be added together without significantly affecting accuracy. Overall, the change in length due to additional load is minor compared to the original length, validating the approach taken in the problem.
coconut62
Messages
161
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Please refer to the image attached.

I don't understand why can they just take 1.8m as the original length, since there is already a load hanging there.

My calculations yield the value of strain to be e/L, but in the answer it is e/1.8.

Please explain this to me.

Homework Equations



E=stress/strain

The Attempt at a Solution



My working is together with the question.
 

Attachments

  • 1379468_10151784703142830_2114532696_n.jpg
    1379468_10151784703142830_2114532696_n.jpg
    28.3 KB · Views: 395
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem statement is a little ambiguous. It isn't clear whether there was a previous weight hanging from the wire, or whether the 25 N force represents the weight. Either way, it doesn't really matter much. If there was already a small weight hanging on the wire, the change in the length of the wire would have been insignificant compared to the 1.8 m. So, even in the incremental problem, the length of the wire could still be taken as 1.8 m (with virtually no loss in accuracy of the answer).
 
Chestermiller said:
If there was already a small weight hanging on the wire, the change in the length of the wire would have been insignificant compared to the 1.8 m.

Why is this so? If there was initially no weight hanging, would the change in length be more significant?
 
coconut62 said:
Why is this so? If there was initially no weight hanging, would the change in length be more significant?

Consider this: If, with the small weight, the length of the wire had increased to 1.8001, would this really have materially changed the answer to your problem (for the incremental change in length). Try it out in your problem and see.

When we use Hooke's law, we assume that all strains are small and linearly superimposible, so that the changes in length are always small compared to the original length. If the change in length were larger, and comparable to the original length, we would have to use large strain theory.
 
What is "linearly superimposible" ?
 
coconut62 said:
What is "linearly superimposible" ?
It means that the strains from each of the two individual loads (in isolation) can be added together to get the strain from the combined load.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top