Showing equivalent potential expressions for a Transverse String

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving potential energy expressions for a transverse string under tension. The initial derivation yields potential energy as \( V_i = \frac{F}{2a}(y_i - y_{i-1})^2 \), while applying Hooke's law suggests it should be \( V_i = \frac{1}{2}kx^2 \). The confusion arises from an extra factor of 1/2 in the derived expression, which is linked to the assumption that tension \( F \) remains constant for small displacements. The effective spring constant is defined as \( k = F/a \), leading to a consistent form of potential energy when considering small vertical displacements. The challenge lies in understanding the geometric implications of displacing along the y-axis and how it relates to the string's behavior.
Potatochip911
Messages
317
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


I'm going through the derivation here starting on page 16. This image adds some context:
string.PNG
.

Generalizing their result to the i'th particle they find the extended distance between two masses being ##\Delta l= \frac{(y_i-y_{i-1})^2}{2a}## Then since the potential energy is given by force * displacement they obtain $$V_i=\frac{F}{2a}(y_i-y_{i-1})^2$$ where ##F## is the tension in the string.

However since the string is stretching Hooke's law should apply which then results in the potential being ##V_i=\frac{1}{2}kx^2##, I'm having trouble showing this produces the same result as above

Homework Equations


##F=-kx##, where x is the extended distance

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
Ignoring the sign convention and using ##F=kx## we sub into the potential equation and get ##V_i=\frac{1}{2}Fx##, but x is just the extended distance ##\Delta l## therefore $$V_i = \frac{F}{2}\frac{(y_i-y_{i-1})^2}{2a}=\frac{F}{4a}(y_i-y_{i-1})^2$$ so I've obtained an extra factor of 1/2 but I can't seem to figure out why
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you missed the importance of the following statement in the derivation
It is also supposed that the tension in the string is F and that the displacements are sufficiently small that this is constant.
The effective spring constant is ##k = F/a## and the potential energy of the taut string is zero at equilibrium. When you displace the first mass straight up by (a very small) ##y_1##, its potential energy is ##V_1 = \frac{1}{2}(F/a)y_1^2##. When you displace the second mass straight up by ## y_2##, its potential energy is ##V_2 = \frac{1}{2}(F/a)(y_2-y_1)^2## and so on.
 
  • Like
Likes Potatochip911
kuruman said:
I think you missed the importance of the following statement in the derivation

The effective spring constant is ##k = F/a## and the potential energy of the taut string is zero at equilibrium. When you displace the first mass straight up by (a very small) ##y_1##, its potential energy is ##V_1 = \frac{1}{2}(F/a)y_1^2##. When you displace the second mass straight up by ## y_2##, its potential energy is ##V_2 = \frac{1}{2}(F/a)(y_2-y_1)^2## and so on.

Hmmm, I can see that this gives the same result as the answer but I don't understand it. It's written in the form ##V_1=\frac{1}{2}(k)d^2## where you subbed in the effective spring constant however I can't understand why we are allowed to write the displacement of the string as merely the y-component when displacing along the y-axis results in a triangle being formed.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top