How Do Gravity and Spring Forces Relate in Vertical Spring Energy Calculations?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between Hooke's law and gravitational forces in a vertical spring system. The user is confused about the energy calculations, particularly how the initial and final energies relate when a mass compresses a spring. It is clarified that while the mass is motionless at both the initial and final states, it does not mean the system is in equilibrium at the final state of compression. The key point is that the spring force (kx) does not equal the gravitational force (mg) at maximum compression, as the system is not in equilibrium at that moment. Understanding the distinction between motionlessness and equilibrium is crucial for resolving the confusion.
gundamn
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello! I'm a bit confused as to the relationship between the magnitude of Hooke's law (F=kx) and the magnitude of gravity versus the relationship between gravitational potential energy and spring potential energy for a vertical spring system. So, here is my problem. Imagine that you place a mass on a uncompressed spring. The mass is being held on the weightless platform of the uncompressed spring. Upon releasing the mass and fully compressing the spring, you can calculate the amount of compression of the spring using the fact that the magnitude of the force of gravity will be equal to the magnitude of the spring force pushing back upward:

Fs = Fg
kx = mg
x = mg/k

Now, you can also calculate the energy of the initial and final states of this system. In the initial state, the spring is uncompressed and the mass is motionless, so both kinetic energy and the spring potential energy are zero. Therefore, the system has an initial energy of:

Ei = mgx

where x is the distance the spring will be compressed when the mass is released.

Now, if we calculate the energy of the system in it's final state, when the spring is fully compressed, we know that the potential energy is zero since we used our reference point for zero height as the point where the spring is fully compressed. We also know the kinetic energy is zero because the mass is motionless. This means that the final energy must be:

Ef = (1/2)kx^2

Using conservation of energy, we can say the initial energy of the system equals the final energy of the system. Now this is where my brain explodes. Setting the initial energy equal to the final energy gives:

mgx = (1/2)kx^2
2mg = kx

but i already showed earlier that because of the canceling of the force of gravity by the force of the spring, we know that:

mg = kx

This isn't possible! how can mg = kx AND 2mg = kx? Anyway, it obviously can't, this would mean that half the potential energy magically vanishes once the spring compressed and that can't happen.

Anyway, I know this can't be correct... if anyone can tell what is wrong with this argument, it would bring me great joy :)

Cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
welcome to pf!

hello gundamn! welcome to pf! :smile:

(try using the X2 icon just above the Reply box :wink:)

i don't see a KE anywhere :confused:

mg = kx is the equilibrium position …

if you use KE + PEgrav + PEspring = constant, you'll have to add in the KE for the speed the mass is going when it reaches the "zero" position :smile:
 
ooh x2, nice :)

I thought that the kinetic energy would be zero in both the initial and final states because just as the mass is released, it is motionless. Also, once the spring compresses as far as it will for the mass, it would also become motionless. So KE = 0 for both the initial and final state..?
 
hi gundamn! :smile:

(just got up :zzz: …)
gundamn said:
… once the spring compresses as far as it will for the mass, it would also become motionless. So KE = 0 for both the initial and final state..?

but when the spring compresses as far as it will for the mass, it's not in equilibrium, and so kx is not mg …

you're confusing temporary motionlessness with equilibrium :wink:
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top