What is the Time Period of a Pivoted Rod with Attached Springs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nathanael
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oscillation Period
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the time period of a pivoted rod with attached springs, where the rod has a mass of 200 kg and length L. The spring constants are k1 = 20 N/m and k2 = 2 N/m. The derived equation for the time period T is T = 2π√(100/33), which approximates to 10.9 seconds. However, discrepancies arise regarding the expected answer of 6.62 seconds, leading to speculation about potential errors in the problem statement or unit conversions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of rotational inertia and torque
  • Familiarity with spring constants and their units
  • Basic knowledge of angular displacement and simple harmonic motion
  • Ability to manipulate equations involving square roots and trigonometric functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the principles of rotational dynamics and the moment of inertia
  • Study the relationship between spring constants and oscillation periods
  • Learn about unit conversions, particularly between N/m and N/cm
  • Explore common pitfalls in physics problem statements and how to identify them
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics, particularly those studying mechanics and oscillatory motion, as well as educators looking to improve problem formulation and clarity in instructional materials.

Nathanael
Homework Helper
Messages
1,650
Reaction score
246

Homework Statement


1254ba4501.2dc01dfc0d.QXhfeq.jpg
[/B]
A system consisting of a rod of mass M and length L is pivoted at its centre P. Two springs of spring constants k1 and k2 are attached as shown. They are relaxed when the rod is horizontal. What is the time period of the rod if it is given a slight angular displacement.

Homework Equations


M = 200
k1 = 20
k2 = 2
Presumably all in SI units

The Attempt at a Solution


I would describe the situation by the equation
(\frac{mL^2}{12})\frac{d^2\theta}{dt^2}=-\frac{L^2}{4}(k_1+k_2)\theta
Because \frac{mL^2}{12} is the rotational inertia, and \frac{L^2}{4}(k_1+k_2)\theta is (approximately) the torque.

We don't care about the angle at time zero, so we don't need the most general solution (all solutions should have the same period) we just need a particular solution, which could be:

\theta_{max}\sin(\sqrt{\frac{3(k_1+k_2)}{m}}t)=\theta_{max}\sin(\sqrt{\frac{66}{200}}t)

The period should then be T=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{100}{33}}\approx 10.9 seconds

But the answer is apparently 6.62 seconds :confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your work looks OK to me. It's a little odd that the spring constants differ by so much. You would get 6.62 s if k2 = 40 rather than 2.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin
TSny said:
Your work looks OK to me.
rude man said:
I got the samer as you.
Okay, thank you both
TSny said:
It's a little odd that the spring constants differ by so much. You would get 6.62 s if k2 = 40 rather than 2.
I actually made a typo... The "correct" answer was supposed to be 0.662 seconds! Those must be some stiff springs!
 
TSny said:
You would get 6.62 s if k2 = 40 rather than 2.

So perhaps a k1 missing from the definition? k2 = 2k1?
The factor of 10 could be accounted for by having the spring constants in units of N/cm instead of N/m.
 
Orodruin said:
So perhaps a k1 missing from the definition? k2 = 2k1?
The factor of 10 could be accounted for by having the spring constants in units of N/cm instead of N/m.
Yes, that could be it.
 
Orodruin said:
So perhaps a k1 missing from the definition? k2 = 2k1?
The factor of 10 could be accounted for by having the spring constants in units of N/cm instead of N/m.
The problem states "M=10k_1=100k_2=200" (which bothers me because N/m does not equal Kg!)
I think the problem creator just made some mistakes.
 
Nathanael said:
The problem states "M=10k_1=100k_2=200" (which bothers me because N/m does not equal Kg!)
I think the problem creator just made some mistakes.
Yes. It's poor form for an instructor to state numbers without the attendant units. You did the best you could by assuming all SI. But the instructor had no cause to write M = 10k1 etc. as you rightly point out.
 
rude man said:
Yes. It's poor form for an instructor to state numbers without the attendant units. You did the best you could by assuming all SI. But the instructor had no cause to write M = 10k1 etc. as you rightly point out.
Sometimes I have seen problems stated as: "Assume the spring constants are k1 N/m and k2 N/m, respectively, and that the mass is M kg." With this formulation, the symbols are merely numbers but, unless you use reasonable units, conversion factors may appear in your equations ...
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K