Is a Vertically Hung Spring Mass System SHM?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on whether a vertically hung spring mass system can be classified as undergoing simple harmonic motion (SHM). Participants explore the definitions and conditions of SHM, the role of gravitational force, and the implications of equilibrium positions in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that in SHM, the net force should solely be the restoring force, represented by F = -kx, and questions if the presence of gravitational force in a vertically hung spring system disqualifies it from being SHM.
  • Another participant challenges this definition, stating that SHM involves periodic motion where the restoring force is proportional to displacement from equilibrium, and argues that gravitational force does not act as a restoring force.
  • Some participants argue that the system still exhibits SHM, emphasizing that the net force can still be expressed as F = -kx, where x is the deviation from the new equilibrium position, despite the influence of gravity.
  • There is a discussion about whether the net restoring force in this scenario can be considered directly proportional to displacement, with conflicting views on the mathematical representation of the forces involved.
  • One participant proposes a step-by-step analysis of the forces acting on the mass, suggesting that the equilibrium position shifts when gravity is considered, leading to a new net force equation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether the vertically hung spring mass system qualifies as a simple harmonic oscillator. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the definitions and implications of forces acting on the system.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include assumptions about the nature of forces, the definitions of equilibrium positions, and the mathematical relationships between forces and displacement, which remain unresolved.

SANGEETAMILIND
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
In an SHM, the only force that should be acting, that is the net force should be the restoring force F, by definition...
F = -kx

For example there is a massless spring of spring constant k attached to the ceiling and there is a body of mass m hung at it and avoiding all kinds of friction...

Due to the weight of the body the equilibrium mean position will be shifted...
numerically it would become
xo = (mg/k)
{considering the the original mean position to be 0}

angular frequency and time period would still be the same as in the SHM motion performed by the spring if it were kept horizontally at natural length.

But by definition of Simple Harmonic Oscillators
F= -kx should be the only force... and in the vertically hung spring mass system 'mg' is also acting, not withstanding that the motion is exactly like the SHM with a different equilibrium position.
Would it still be considered as a simple harmonic oscillator?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Your definition of SHM is not quite right. Simple harmonic motion is a variety of periodic motion that results when the restoring force is proportional to displacement from equilibrium. The gravitational force is not a restoring force.
 
Yes, this still gives simple harmonic motion. The net force is still given by F = -kx where x is the deviation from the equilibrium position. The fact that the net force is a combination of the spring force plus gravity and the fact that the equilibrium length of the spring is not the same as its unstressed length is irrelevant.
 
jbriggs444 said:
Yes, this still gives simple harmonic motion. The net force is still given by F = -kx where x is the deviation from the equilibrium position. The fact that the net force is a combination of the spring force plus gravity and the fact that the equilibrium length of the spring is not the same as its unstressed length is irrelevant.

For a Simple Harmonic Oscillator...

the net force is the restoring force which is F ∝ -x.

But in the above scenario, the net restoring force is the combination of Gravity and Spring Force and thus not directly proportional to displacement...

So would it be called a Simple Harmonic Oscillator or just a Harmonic Oscillator?
 
SANGEETAMILIND said:
But in the above scenario, the net restoring force is the combination of Gravity and Spring Force
True.
and thus not directly proportional to displacement...
How do you figure that, mathematically?
 
jtbell said:
True.

How do you figure that, mathematically?
the net force is
F = -(kx + mg)

can you call it as F ∝ -x?
 
SANGEETAMILIND said:
But in the above scenario, the net restoring force is the combination of Gravity and Spring Force and thus not directly proportional to displacement..
Yes, it is directly proportional to displacement from the equilibrium position.
 
OK, let's go through this step by step. We have a mass hanging vertically from a spring under the influence of gravity. If we could "turn off" gravity, the mass would "hang" at a certain vertical position corresponding to the equilibrium length of the spring alone. Call this vertical position x = 0. Let x be positive upwards and negative downwards.

Now "turn on" gravity. It pulls the mass down. Let it come to rest at a new equilibrium position, call it x = x0. At this position the net force on the mass is zero: Fnet = -kx0 - mg = 0. Note that x0 is negative so -kx0 is positive (upwards). The spring pulls the mass upwards and gravity pulls the mass downwards.

Now pull the mass down to a new position x and release it. Immediately after release:

(a) What is Fnet on the mass now?

(b) What is the displacement from the equilibrium position (the one with gravity turned on)?

(c) Write Fnet in part (a) in terms of the displacement in part (b).
 
jtbell said:
(a) What is Fnet on the mass now?
SANGEETAMILIND said:
the net force is
F = -(kx + mg)
OK.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K