How to Solve Two Masses Connected by a Spring in Ground Frame of Reference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NTesla
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spring
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving the dynamics of two masses connected by a spring in a Ground frame of reference, contrasting it with the Center of Mass (CoM) frame approach. Key equations include the motion equations for each mass, expressed as m_1 \ddot{x_1}=k(x_2-x_1-l_0)+F_1 and m_2 \ddot{x_2}=-k(x_2-x_1-l_0)+F_2, leading to the relationship \ddot{(x_2-x_1)}=-k(1/m_1+1/m_2)(x_2-x_1-l_0). The maximum elongation of the spring is derived as A+|l-l_0|, where A is the amplitude of oscillation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering the forces acting on the masses and the resulting motion in the Ground frame.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Second Law of Motion
  • Familiarity with harmonic motion and spring dynamics
  • Knowledge of energy conservation principles
  • Ability to solve coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of equations of motion for coupled systems in classical mechanics
  • Learn about the energy conservation approach in oscillatory systems
  • Explore the application of Newton's laws in non-inertial frames
  • Investigate the mathematical techniques for solving coupled ODEs
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in classical mechanics and dynamic systems analysis.

  • #31
@haruspex ,
I've tried to find a relation between CoM's displacement and ##x_1## and ##x_2##, but it appears more difficult than I assumed it to be. Here's my work:
5.jpeg


I am not able to figure out the relation. let me know how to proceed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
anuttarasammyak said:
\ddot{(x_2-x_1)}=-k(1/m_1+1/m_2)(x_2-x_1-l_0)+F_2/m_2-F_1/m_1

You see RHS second term ##F_2/m_2-F_1/m_1## is constant.

You see RHS first term is written as
-k(1/m_1+1/m_2)(x_2-x_1-l_0)=-k(1/m_1+1/m_2)(x_2-x_1) - k(1/m_1+1/m_2)(-l_0)
the second term is constant.
Add these two constants and express it as
k(1/m_1+1/m_2)l
introducing new constant ##l##. Show me expression of ##l## by F,m,k and l_0.
@anuttarasammyak, Perhaps I hadn't made the question clear in my earlier post. I do understand the calculation part of it. What I couldn't understand is that what is the physical significance of the variable which you have double differentiated in the equation:
7.png
 
  • #33
NTesla said:
What I couldn't understand is that what is the physical significance of the variable which you have double differentiated in the equation:
You observe that this is equation of harmonic oscillation : displacement ##x_2-x_1-l##, angular frequency ##\omega##.

l is new "natural length" of spring with ##F_1## and ##F_2## applied. ##x_2-x_1-l## is extension of spring from renewed balance point. See also HINT in my previous post.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
anuttarasammyak said:
You observe that this is equation of harmonic oscillation : displacement ##x_2-x_1-l##, angular frequency ##\omega##.

l is new "natural length" of spring with ##F_1## and ##F_2## applied. ##x_2-x_1-l## is extension of spring from renewed balance point. See also HINT in my previous post.
@anuttarasammyak,
Since ##x_1, x_2## are coordinates of masses at any instant.
##l##=##x_2-x_1##. Therefore, ##x_2-x_1-l## = ##x_2-x_1-x_2+x_1## = ##0## always. So there is no reason why this should be differentiated wrt time.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
NTesla said:
Since ##x_1, x_2## are coordinates of masses at any instant.
##l##=##x_2-x_1##. Therefore, ##x_2-x_1-l## = ##x_2-x_1-x_2+x_1## = ##0## always. So there is no reason why this should be differentiated wrt time.
You have done the calculation so know that ##l## is constant. So your ##l##=##x_2-x_1## means spring between block 1 and block 2 does not change its length like a rod, though the equation is that of harmonic oscillation. Do I catch you right ?
 
  • #36
anuttarasammyak said:
You have done the calculation so know that ##l## is constant. So your ##l##=##x_2-x_1## means spring between block 1 and block 2 does not change its length like a rod, though the equation is that of harmonic oscillation. Do I catch you right ?
I'm trying to understand your calculation in post #4. You have taken ##x_1,x_2## as coordinates.
##l## is the length of string at any instant of time. It is not a constant. ##l## changes wrt time.
##l##=##x_2-x_1##, considering that ##x_1, x_2## are coordinates of the masses ##m_1## and ##m_2##.
But, the value of ##x_2-x_1-l=0## always.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Hi. My l is
anuttarasammyak said:
l-l_0=\frac{F_2/m_2-F_1/m_1}{\omega^2}

Your l is
NTesla said:
It is not a constant. ##l## changes wrt time.
##l##=##x_2-x_1##, considering that ##x_1, x_2## are coordinates of the masses ##m_1## and ##m_2##.
But, the value of ##x_2-x_1-l=0## always.

So the equation is written as
\ddot{(l_{yours}-l_{mine})}+\omega^2(l_{yours}-l_{mine})=0
where
\omega^2=k(1/m_1+1/m_2)
l_{mine}=l_0+\frac{F_2/m_2-F_1/m_1}{\omega^2}, constant, and
l_{yours}=x_2-x_1=l_{yours}(t) function of time.

##l_{yours}-l_{mine}## is elongation of spring not from its natural length ##l_0## but from ##l_{mine}## which is interpreted as altered natural length under external constant forces.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
NTesla said:
@haruspex ,
I've tried to find a relation between CoM's displacement and ##x_1## and ##x_2##, but it appears more difficult than I assumed it to be. Here's my work: View attachment 273350

I am not able to figure out the relation. let me know how to proceed.
If m1 moves x1 to the left and m2 moves x2 to the right then that shifts the "mass moment" m2 x2 - m1 x1 to the right, so (m1+m2)Δs = m2 x2 - m1 x1, where Δs is positive to the right.
 
  • #39
@haruspex, Thank you so much. That was very helpful.

Just one question: If we do not resort to center of mass FoR, and work solely in Ground FoR, then how can we explain that the maximum elongation will happen when both the masses have same velocity as that of velocity of com ?
 
  • #40
NTesla said:
@haruspex, Thank you so much. That was very helpful.

Just one question: If we do not resort to center of mass FoR, and work solely in Ground FoR, then how can we explain that the maximum elongation will happen when both the masses have same velocity as that of velocity of com ?
Not sure if that's what you meant. There's no problem explaining that; do you mean, how do we use it?
Isn't it the same as saying the two masses have the same velocity?
 
  • #41
@haruspex,
When working in CoM FoR, both the masses will seem to be moving in opposite direction and maximum extension in spring will happen when velocity of both the masses is equal to zero at the same instant.

However, when working in Ground FoR, the bodies might seem to be moving in same direction, but maximum extension of spring will happen when both the masses have same speed in same direction. Will it be right to say so.? If yes, then is there an intuitive way to explain that this is the only way possible for string to have maximum elongation in Ground FoR ?
 
  • #42
Hi.
NTesla said:
If yes, then is there an intuitive way to explain that this is the only way possible for string to have maximum elongation in Ground FoR ?
At extreme points
\dot{l_{yours}}=0
It means
\dot{x_1}=\dot{x_2}
When it is maximum extension
\ddot{l_{yours}}=-\omega^2(l_{yours}-l_{mine})< 0
For minimum shrink
\ddot{l_{yours}}=-\omega^2(l_{yours}-l_{mine})> 0
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NTesla
  • #43
NTesla said:
@haruspex,
When working in CoM FoR, both the masses will seem to be moving in opposite direction and maximum extension in spring will happen when velocity of both the masses is equal to zero at the same instant.

However, when working in Ground FoR, the bodies might seem to be moving in same direction, but maximum extension of spring will happen when both the masses have same speed in same direction. Will it be right to say so.? If yes, then is there an intuitive way to explain that this is the only way possible for string to have maximum elongation in Ground FoR ?
If the two masses have different velocities in the ground frame then they are either getting closer or further apart. If closer, they must have been further apart earlier; if further apart, they will be at max separation later. So when at max, the relative velocity must be zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NTesla
  • #44

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K