Proof of Equation for Period of Spring: T = 2pi (root x)/(root a)

  • Thread starter Thread starter decamij
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The proof for the period of a spring, T = 2pi x (root)x/(root)a, is questioned for its validity in a grade 12 context. While it correctly relates centripetal acceleration to oscillating motion, it fails to focus solely on the spring system, which is essential for a proper proof. The discussion emphasizes that although circular motion and spring oscillation are both forms of simple harmonic motion, the proof should prioritize the spring's characteristics. For a more accurate approach, it is suggested to use T = 2(pi)/f and derive frequency specifically for spring motion. Overall, while the proof connects concepts, it may not yield high marks due to its lack of specificity to the spring system.
decamij
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I just want to know if the following proof is okay. I'm in grade 12, and i this will probably be on my midterm.

Prove the following equation (for the period of a spring):

T = 2pi x (root)x/(root)a

If: ac=v^2/r, and v = 2pirf, then:

ac = 4pi^2rf^2, and:

ac = (4pi^2r)/T^2. Therefore,

T = root(4pi^2r)/a

Therefore,

T = 2pi (root x)/(root a)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You equated it in a good manner but I don't thik it is good. You have taken centripetal acceleration in account but in an oscilating spring it is not possible.
To find it correctly, use t = 2 (pi)/f
find f for spring motion.
 
But something in uniform circular motion and an ideal spring are both examples of simple harmonic motion
 
yes, that's right, oscilating motion is also called as the projection of the circular motion. But when you are giving a proof for oscilating spring than you must take only spring i system in account, you can reffer to other relative systems, but relate them with the required system.
this proof is good to relate the circular motion and the oscillating motion but not good to obtain nice marks.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top