So the title could be Finding Equilibrium in a Mass Spring System with Torque

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding the equilibrium in a mass-spring system influenced by torque. The initial calculations for the spring's tension and gravitational force were presented, but the user realized they were addressing the wrong problem regarding the spring's resting length. Clarifications were made about the forces acting on the bar, including the need to consider torque to simplify the analysis. The final calculations led to a revised resting length of the spring when the bar is removed, yielding a difference of approximately 134 cm. The conversation emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the forces and moments in such mechanical systems.
Dren
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

1.

001.png

Homework Equations



// Tension of the spring
// Where sinL between `bottom right` of the spring and the bar
Ft = sinL * kx

// Where x0 is the initial length of the spring
Ft = sinL * k(x - x0)

// Force of gravity
Fg = -mg

// Find x0
// sqr = square root
x0 = sqr(100^2 + 100^2)
// Converted to meters
x0 = 1.421

Ft + Fg = 0
sinL * k(x - x0) - mg = 0
sinL * k(x - x0) = mg
1/1.421 * 1000(x - 1.421) = 10 * 9.8
(x - 1.421) = 98 / 1/1.421 * 1000
x - 1.421 = 98 / 703.73
x = 1.5602579540448752

// Converted to centimeters and rounded
x = 156cm

But for some reason this doesn't seem to be the right answer. ;(

If someone could help me would be really appreciated.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dren said:
x0 = 1.421

x = 1.5602579540448752

Does a spring get longer or shorter when you pull on it's ends?
 
billy_joule said:
Does a spring get longer or shorter when you pull on it's ends?

I think longer, isn't it?
 
billy_joule said:
Does a spring get longer or shorter when you pull on it's ends?

I meant x to be bigger than x0 after the rigid bar has been starching the spring.
 
Dren said:
I think longer, isn't it?
Yes.
Dren said:
I meant x to be bigger than x0 after the rigid bar has been starching the spring.

The diagram shows the spring already stretched, with length ## \sqrt2~ m ## as you've found.
If the bar were removed, the spring would contract to its relaxed length. which must be ## < \sqrt2~ m ##
 
billy_joule said:
Yes.The diagram shows the spring already stretched, with length ## \sqrt2~ m ## as you've found.
If the bar were removed, the spring would contract to its relaxed length. which must be ## < \sqrt2~ m ##

I see, so I guess I was trying to solve the wrong problem from the beginning, so the question is: find the resting length if the bar is removed?

I this case I have to subtract the length caused by the bar on the spring, so that we'd find the original length of the spring without the bard acting on it?

BTW: Sorry for my silly questions.
 
Last edited:
Dren said:
I see, so I guess I was trying to solve the wrong problem from the beginning, so the question is: find the resting length if the bar is removed?

I this case I have to subtract the length caused by the bar on the spring, so that we'd find the original length of the spring without the bard acting on it?

BTW: Sorry for my silly questions.

Updated my comment.
 
Dren said:
I see, so I guess I was trying to solve the wrong problem from the beginning, so the question is: find the resting length if the bar is removed?

I this case I have to subtract the length caused by the bar on the spring, so that we'd find the original length of the spring without the bard acting on it?
Yes,that's one way of saying it.

Dren said:
Ft + Fg = 0
This isn't right.
There are three forces acting on the bar - it's weight force, the springs force, and a reaction force where it's connected to the wall.

The simplest way to find T is take moments (torques) about the bar-wall joint, that way we don't need to consider the wall reaction.
 
  • Like
Likes Dren
billy_joule said:
Yes,that's one way of saying it.This isn't right.
There are three forces acting on the bar - it's weight force, the springs force, and a reaction force where it's connected to the wall.

The simplest way to find T is take moments (torques) about the bar-wall joint, that way we don't need to consider the wall reaction.

Does the following sound reasonable:##m = 10kg##
##g = 9.8m/s^2##
##k = 1000N/m##

##x0 = \sqrt{2}##
##theta = 45°##

##T = k * x##

##Ft = L * T * sin(theta)##
##Fg = L/2 * m * g##

##L * T * sin(theta) = L/2 * mg##
##2L * T * sin(theta) = mg##
##T = 1/2 * mg / sin(theta)##

##k * x = 1/2 * mg / sin(theta)##
##x = (1/2 * mg / sin(theta)) / k##
##x = (1/2 * 98 / \sqrt{2}/2) / 1000##

##x = 98 / \sqrt{2} * 1000##
##x ~= 0.06929m##

// Now finally subtract from the original length
##diff = x0 - x##
##diff = \sqrt{2} - 0.06929##
##diff = 1.3449170978168133914017m##
##diff = 1.3449170978168133914017 * 100##

// Rounded
##diff = 134cm##
 
  • #10
I think it seems to be ok.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Yes, looks good.
Except here you call moments forces;
Dren said:
##Ft = L * T * sin(theta)##
##Fg = L/2 * m * g##
 
Back
Top