How Is Potential Energy Calculated in a Linear Mass-Spring System?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the potential energy in a linear mass-spring system consisting of three equal masses and four identical springs. Participants are examining the formula for potential energy based on the displacements of the masses.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the potential energy formula proposed by the original poster, questioning the inclusion of certain terms and the correct representation of variables in LaTeX. Some participants suggest the need for clarity regarding the lengths and extensions of the springs involved.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing clarification regarding the potential energy expression, with some participants affirming the correctness of the original poster's formula while others challenge assumptions about the spring lengths and extensions. Multiple interpretations of the energy terms are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of explicit information about the equilibrium length of the springs, leading to different assumptions about the system's setup. The discussion reflects varying understandings of how displacement affects potential energy in this context.

loonychune
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
Just wondering if you could tell me what the potential energy of this system is...?

We have a linear mass-spring system, 3 masses all of equal mass m, 4 springs all of same length, same spring constant k...

|---o---o---o---|

Each mass is displaced by x1, x2 and x3 respectively.

I am reckoning the potential energy is,

U = \frac{1}{2}k(x^{2}_{1} + x^{2}_{3}) + \frac{1}{2}k(x_{3} - x_{2})^{2} + \frac{1}{2}k(x_{2} - x_{1})^{2}

The superscripts in terms 2 and 3 in brackets should in fact be subscripts (but the latex code _{} is putting in superscripts)...

My means of obtaining this value are pretty raw so i would appreciate any insight into what's really going on (if of course my U is correct)...

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are four distances involved in the sum. Taking L to be the length between ends

x1-0
x2-x1
x3-x2
L-x3

So, you need an L in your eqn somewhere.
 
loonychune said:
The superscripts in terms 2 and 3 in brackets should in fact be subscripts (but the latex code _{} is putting in superscripts)...

That's because you're using the TeX tags very inefficiently, what's wrong with typing:
U = \frac12 k (x_1^2 + x_3^2) + \frac12(x_3 - x_2)^2 + \frac12 (x_2 - x_1)^2
(note the entire post only has one pair of tex tags)
 
Your potential energy is correct! :smile:

Assuming that x_1,x_2,x_3 are to the right (no harm to generality), the first spring has length l+x_1, so
U_1=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,x_1^2
The second spring has length l+x_2-x_1, so
U_2=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,(x_2-x_1)^2
The third spring has length l+x_3-x_2, so
U_3=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,(x_3-x_2)^2
The last spring has length l-x_3, so
U_4=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,x_3^2
Thus

U = \frac12 \,k\,(x_1^2 + x_3^2) + \frac12 \,k\,(x_3 - x_2)^2 + \frac12 \,k\,(x_2 - x_1)^2
 
Rainbow Child said:
Your potential energy is correct! :smile:

Assuming that x_1,x_2,x_3 are to the right (no harm to generality), the first spring has length l+x_1, so
U_1=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,x_1^2
The second spring has length l+x_2-x_1, so
U_2=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,(x_2-x_1)^2
The third spring has length l+x_3-x_2, so
U_3=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,(x_3-x_2)^2
The last spring has length l-x_3, so
U_4=\frac{1}{2}\,k\,x_3^2
Thus

U = \frac12 \,k\,(x_1^2 + x_3^2) + \frac12 \,k\,(x_3 - x_2)^2 + \frac12 \,k\,(x_2 - x_1)^2

A distance l-x3 corresponds to a quadratic pe term of k/2 (l-x3)^2.
 
christianjb said:
A distance l-x3 corresponds to a quadratic pe term of k/2 (l-x3)^2.

No! The potential energy is

U=\frac12\,k\,x^2

where x is the extension of the spring, not it's length.
 
Rainbow Child said:
No! The potential energy is

U=\frac12\,k\,x^2

where x is the extension of the spring, not it's length.

The extension and the length are the same things in this case. I'm assuming that the equilibrium length is zero, since no extra information is given.

You can see that the length must be in the energy term somewhere, because it obviously costs energy to increase the length.
 
christianjb said:
I'm assuming that the equilibrium length is zero, since no extra information is given.

What do you mean by that? Each spring has length l before we move the masses.
If the 3rd mass is displaced x_3 to the right, the spring's length woulb be l-x_3, thus the spring would be compressed by x_3
 
Yes I like the way you put that rainbow child, thanks a lot.

Will have to be more efficient with [ tex ] in future n all :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
896
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K