Mechanical equivalent of a coil

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the analogy between mechanical systems and electrical circuits, specifically comparing harmonic motion in springs to RCL circuits. Participants debate the equivalence of mechanical components, questioning how mass relates to inductance and whether elasticity can be viewed as inductance. There is a focus on increasing inductance through physical manipulation, such as folding a wire into a coil, and whether similar methods can apply to mechanical systems. The conversation highlights the complexity of establishing accurate analogies between mechanical and electrical properties. Ultimately, the participants seek clarity on these relationships and their implications in both fields.
Yoni
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
Hi. This is a simple one (I think):

We all know a swing, or simple mass on a spring, moves in harmonic motion, and has a specific resonative frequency. We also know that the RCL circuit (which includes a coil and a capacitor) reacts similarly to an external oscillator, also with a specific frequency which gives the highest output. Both systems are equivalents, right?
So my question is: If we decide the mechanical velocity is equivalent to the current, and the spring equivalent to the capacitor, what is the mechanical equivalent of a coil?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your question makes some assumptions that might need refined. We might say, for example, that the spring compliance is analogous to capacitance, but I would not say that a spring is equivalent to a capacitor. But, that aside, do you see any relationship between the mass and inductance?
 
Thanks for your amendment.
Mass, ha? Yes, this is what I thought. This is all under the analogy that velocity transforms to current. Can you therefore somehow conclude that under a different analogy that inductance would be like the elasticity of the spring (I mean with regards to current being analogous to some other variable)? Or is the previous analogy the only valid one?
 
Also, regarding the original analogy: taking a long conductive wire and folding it in circles, creating a coil, would increase inductance without lengthening the wire... am I right? Is there a way to increase "mechanical inductance" (meaning mass) without actually increasing mass itself?

If my assumptions above are correct, I thought that putting the mass on a table and rolling it with static friction generating angular momentum would accomplish that. Are my thoughts correct?
 
Yoni said:
Also, regarding the original analogy: taking a long conductive wire and folding it in circles, creating a coil, would increase inductance without lengthening the wire... am I right? Is there a way to increase "mechanical inductance" (meaning mass) without actually increasing mass itself?

If my assumptions above are correct, I thought that putting the mass on a table and rolling it with static friction generating angular momentum would accomplish that. Are my thoughts correct?

I believe you are correct about other analogies, but I am at least twenty years away from looking at this and feel out of my depth without reviewing. So, I'm going to pass and ask you to Google "mechanical analog inductance" or "mechanical analog capacitance" and see what you find.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top