Elastic Potential: U and F Explained for James

  • Thread starter Thread starter James Starligh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elastic Potential
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equations for elastic potential energy (U) and elastic force (F) related to a spring system. The formula for elastic potential energy is clarified as U = (K(x - X0)²)/2, with the force derived as F = -k(x - X0). There is confusion regarding the inclusion of the term vt in the force equation, with participants debating its relevance and whether it should equal zero. The correct application of calculus and chain rule is emphasized, leading to the conclusion that the force is directed opposite to the displacement from the equilibrium position. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between displacement, velocity, and force in elastic systems.
James Starligh
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Collegues,

please just remind me

if I have elastic potential U=( K(x-X0)^2 )/2 for the flexible spring moved on X distance from the initial X0 position So I have I have elastic force F=K(x0+vt-x) which is the derivative of the U. Its not clear for me why vt term which should be equal to x in this equation is present ? From the general assumption (x-X0)^2 should be x^2-2*X*X0+X0^2 where is the vt term here?



James
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what's vt?

looks like you differentiated incorrectly.
 
x = V (velosity) * t (time)
both of that formulas are from textbooks.

Reasonable U= (Kx^2)/2 so force = kx. wehat fould be force if U=( K(x-X0)^2 )/2 in case when we moved body from the initial position (Xo) on X. The delta X should give us velosity should it?
 
x = vt is for a body moving at constant velocity for a time t. I wouldn't have thought this was the case here. So we have simply

U = \frac{1}{2}k(x - x_0)^2

F = -\frac{dU}{dx} = -k(x - x_0) (having used chain rule)

The minus sign in front of the k indicates that the force is in the -x direction.
 
Thanks!

Some calculus:
In the F=K(x0+vt-x) dealing with the constant velosity vt should be equal to 0, shouldn't it?

In the chain rule we have f(x)= x-x0 and g(y)=y^2 so solving it we obtain that (x-xo)' should be 1. I don't understand why its not 0.

James
 
James Starligh said:
In the F=K(x0+vt-x) dealing with the constant velosity vt should be equal to 0, shouldn't it?

Don't understand why you're bringing in vt, especially since you seem to have both x and vt in this equation. Stick with just x, unless you're sure that x really does vary with time as x = vt.

James Starligh said:
In the chain rule we have f(x)= x-x0 and g(y)=y^2 so solving it we obtain that (x-xo)' should be 1. I don't understand why its not 0.

\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2}k(x - x_0)^2 = \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{du}u^2 \frac {du}{dx}

in which u = (x - x_0) so \frac{du}{dx} = 1

and \frac{d}{du}u^2 = 2u

So \frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2}k(x - x_0)^2 =k(x - x_0).
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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...
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top