How Does Ruler Length Affect Spring Constant and Oscillation Frequency?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between the length of a ruler and its spring constant when oscillating with a mass at the end. It highlights the formula for deflection in a cantilever beam and connects it to Hooke's Law to derive the spring constant. The conversation also touches on the importance of torque and bending moments in this context. Additionally, the impact of changing the ruler's length on its natural frequency and the resulting pitch of the sound produced during oscillation is noted. Overall, the interplay between length, spring constant, and oscillation frequency is central to understanding the ruler's behavior.
Oblivionator
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
When oscillating a ruler with an extended mass on the end, what is the direct relation of the

length against the spring constant of the ruler? I heard the spring constant had some

relation with the curve of the ruler as it oscillates
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My take on this:

Deflection at the end of a cantilever beam of length L, elastic modulus E, second moment about neutral axis I, load at end (mass x g) F:

x = FL3 / 3EI

Using Hooke's Law: F = kx

Therefore k = 3EI / L3
 
don't you also have to take into account torque?

T = R x F
 
You're thinking of bending moment (analogous to torque, but preferred when you're talking about beams). The maximum bending moment for the beam that we're considering is the load at the end multiplied by the length: M = FL

However, the OP is talking about oscillating the system. I'm guessing they're wondering about changing the natural frequency of the ruler by changing the length that is free (how far over the edge of thet able it is before you 'twang' it). The change in natural frequency results in a change in the pitch of the sound you hear.
 
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...
Back
Top