Derive the force from different spring configurations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the force from various spring configurations, particularly two springs in series with different spring constants. It explains that for springs in series, the total spring constant (K_T) can be calculated using the formula 1/K_T = 1/k_1 + 1/k_2, where k_1 and k_2 are the individual spring constants. The total displacement is the sum of the individual displacements, leading to the relationship x_T = x_1 + x_2. For springs in parallel, the displacement remains equal while the forces add up, allowing for a similar derivation of the total spring constant. The discussion emphasizes understanding these principles for any combination of springs.
brentd49
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know a website that will derive the force from different spring configurations, i.e. two springs in series with different spring constants. I would just like to be able to understand and work with any combination of springs: two in series, connected to 3 in parallel connected to one in series...etc. I want to be able to understand from the general case. Halliday and Resnik does not go into detail at all, and I didn't have any luck googling. Thanks. -Brent
 
Physics news on Phys.org
^bump

I'd be satisfied with a decent explanation of two springs in series with different spring constants.
 
For 2 springs in series you have a common force, each spring has a force of mg acting (neglecting the mass of the springs). So:

- x_1 k_1= mg
and
- x_2 K_2 = mg

For the pair of springs you can write:
-x_T K_T = mg


But we must have:
x_T = x_1 +x_2

For the total we now can write:
-(x_1 + x_2) K_T =mg

Observe that from our first relationships we have :

-x_n = \frac {mg} {k_n}

n= 1,2

so:
(now I can eliminate the pesky negative sign)
(\frac {mg} {k_1} + \frac {mg} {k_2})K_T = mg

Finally we get :

\frac 1 {K_t} = \frac 1 { k_1} + \frac 1 {k_2}

The key to the parallel case is that the displacement of the springs are equal. I'll let you do that one.
 
Last edited:
The force on a spring equals the spring constant times the change in length.

(1) dF=ktotal dxtotal

and for a series of springs, dF is the same for each, so

(2) dF = k1 dx1 + k2 dx2 + k3 dx3 etc...
or dF = sum (kn dxn)

and the total distance x is
(3) dxtotal = sum (dF/kn)

Now substitute (3) into (1)

dF = ktotal dxtotal = ktotal sum(dF/kn)

Divide by dF

1 = ktotal sum (1/kn)

Put ktotal on the opposite side

ktotal = 1/ (sum (1/kn))

(sorry for the lousey presentation here.)

So the total spring constant for a bunch of springs in series is:

ktotal = 1 / ( sum (1/kn) )

Where
ktotal = total or equivalent spring constant of the springs in series
kn = one of the springs from 1 to n

Example:

For 3 springs with k's
1. 10 (lb/in)
2. 24 (lb/in)
3. 40 (lb/in)

The equivalent spring constant is

k = 1/ (1/10 + 1/24 + 1/40 )

k = 1/ (.1 + .0416667 + .025)

k = 6 (lb/in)

If you use the same basic logic, you should also be able to determine a more generic formula for springs in series and parallel.

Edit: I see Integral beat me to it! lol
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top