Force in spring due to falling object

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the force exerted by a falling object attached to a crane via a non-elastic cable and modeled as a spring system. The user presents a formula derived from energy conservation, equating potential energy from height and spring extension. Clarifications are sought regarding the relationship between the height of the fall and the spring's extension, particularly when considering deceleration effects. It is noted that if the force from the spring is significantly greater than the weight of the object, the additional height during deceleration can be neglected. However, if it cannot be neglected, a quadratic equation must be solved to account for the relationship between the height and the spring extension.
ChristopherJ
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I'm designing a crane that is supposed to withstand forces due to a falling object attached to the crane with a non-elastic cable. I have some troubles to calculate what force that will be due to the falling object.

I figured that one way is to simplify this system with a spring with spring constant k, extension of the spring x, non-elastic cable of length h, object with mass m, gravitational constant g.

Then, the spring is hanging vertical, attached in the upper end to a rigid mount and the cable in the free hanging end, and in the free end of the cable the object is attached. If the object is falling from the point where the cable is attached to the spring it will fall the distance h. Then the following expressions may be used.

1. Potential energy due to a height, E=mgh
2. Potential energy in the spring due to an extension, E=0.5kx^2
3. Hooke´s law due to an extension, F=kx

1 and 2 gives mgh=0.5kx^2 which gives x=sqrt(2mgh/k). This combined with 3 gives F=kx=sqrt(2mgkh).

Am I right in my reasoning and the last expression? For which cases is this then true?

I would be most grateful for response.

Regards
Christopher
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The formula is good if you can neglect the additional height difference during the deceleration process. You can neglect it if F>>mg.
 
Okey, so you mean that h in mgh is the length of the cable plus x, i.e. h ist the distance from the point of release to where it comes to a stop? If I can't neglect that, how should I do the calculations then? Since x depends on h, which depends in x?
 
Last edited:
If I can't neglect that, how should I do the calculations then? Since x depends on h, which depends in x?
You will get a quadratic equation, which can be solved. The "new h" is just the old h (constant) plus x.
 
mfb said:
You will get a quadratic equation, which can be solved. The "new h" is just the old h (constant) plus x.

I'm not sure I'm following. If the new h is the old h plus x, then I can perform the calculations twice and the second time just add x to h? Or how would the equation look like?
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
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/
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...
Back
Top