Conservation of energy springs.

AI Thread Summary
In a discussion about the conservation of energy in a spring system, a user questions whether the sum of kinetic, gravitational potential, and elastic potential energy remains constant when a weight is attached to a vertically positioned spring. They argue that since gravitational and elastic potential energies change at different rates, the total energy would not yield a constant value. Respondents clarify that, despite the individual energies changing at different rates, the total energy remains conserved, similar to the relationship between potential and kinetic energy in freefall. They suggest visualizing energy changes through graphs to better understand the conservation principle. The conversation emphasizes the importance of recognizing that while energy types fluctuate, their total remains constant in a closed system.
computer_geek
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, I have a question regarding the conservation of energy.

So you have a long spring (the kind that wants to stay closed, as in when you pull on it, it reacts in the opposite direction) situated in a vertical position. You attach the weight to the bottom of the spring, and let it bounce up and down several times.

Now, using distance sensors and what not, you can calculate kinetic, potential (gravitational), and potential (elastic) energy. Would it be correct to assume that when the 3 are added together, a somewhat constant value is achieved?

Well, that's what my teacher claims. I think otherwise because although (potential) gravitational energy decreases when (potential) elastic energy increases, they change at different rates, therefore not resulting in a straight line when added.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you think the PEspring and PEgrav change at different rates? Think about this question: If an object falls from rest, from a height of h, the object has PE defined by mgh, and KE defined by 1/2mv^2. These also appear to change at different rates... yet you would probably agree that as the PE decreases, the KE increases by the exact same amount. The spring system is, in a way, very similar. Back to the freefall example - try sketching graphs of PE vs. time, and on the same axis, KE vs. time. (As a start, also think about your Vel. vs. time graph for an object in freefall - your KE graph would be the square of the Vel. vs. time)
 
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