Spring Compression problem- PLEASE SOMEONE HELP PLEASE DX<?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum compression of a spring when a 2.4 kg block is dropped from a height of 1.7 m onto it. The initial approach incorrectly assumed that the falling block only had kinetic energy, neglecting its potential energy at the drop height. The correct method involves considering both the gravitational potential energy from the height and the compression of the spring, leading to the equation mgh + mgx = 1/2(k)(x^2). After recognizing the error, the revised calculations yield a maximum compression of 0.29 m, aligning with the teacher's answer. The key takeaway is understanding that both kinetic and potential energies must be accounted for during the block's fall.
Lo.Lee.Ta.
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Spring Compression problem!- PLEASE SOMEONE HELP! PLEASE! DX<?

Spring Compression problem!

A 2.4kg block is dropped onto a free-standing spring with k=1100N/m from a height of 1.7m above the spring. What is the spring's maximum compression?

Okay, so I drew a picture of the situation.
Frame #1:
Falling Block: kinetic energy, but no potential energy
Spring: No kinetic energy and no potential energy

Frame #2:
Block has now compressed the spring to the maximum it is able.
Block and Spring: potential energy, but no kinetic energy

(If this reasoning is wrong so far, please let me know what is wrong about it and why! Thanks! :D)

So:
Energy in Frame #1 = Energy in Frame #
(Kf + Uf) = (Ki + Ui)
[0 + 1/2(k)(x^2)] = [1/2(m)(v^2) + 0]
([1/2(1100)(x^2)] = [1/2(2.4)(5.77)^2]
x = .2695m

I found the velocity for this equation by: (vf)^2 = (vi)^2 + 2ad
Vf= 5.77m.s

So that was how I found the max. compression of .2695m...

But in class, my teacher got the answer: .29m
He wrote the equation for this problem as: mgh + mgx = 0 + 1/2(k)(x)^2
How does he have 2 potential energies on the left side of the equation?! The block is moving! Wouldn't there be just a kinetic energy?

Please help me! Can the problem be done as I have done it, or is this wrong?
Please explain WHY it is wrong, if that is so.

Thank you SO much! :D You are awesome!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Your teacher observed the block before dropping. In that position his PE was max and his KE was zero. His potential energy is calculated with height that is height of 1.7m above the spring, and the compression of the spring. That means, after the spring compresses, the height of the block changes for height h plus x for the spring compression and therefore mgh + mgx.
 


Thank you for replying! :)
I think I understand what you mean. The problem ends up being:
(2.4)(9.8)(1.7) + (2.4)(9.8)(x) = 1/2(1100)(x^2)
Only after using the quatratic equation do I get .29, so I get this method...
But it seems to me that my method should have worked also... Because energy is the same throughout a system, but it just gets converted into different forms (kinetic or potential).
So I chose: (1)- when the block was falling- and (2)- when the block had compressed the spring to the maximum it was able.
But I think I see my error now! The falling object would actually have BOTH kinetic and potential energy, right?
That makes it too difficult to analyze, so we instead choose points where the block is motionless.
So my biggest mistake was saying that the falling block only has kinetic energy, when it also has potential energy, right?
Is this reasoning right? Thanks for responding! :)
 


Lo.Lee.Ta. said:
But I think I see my error now! The falling object would actually have BOTH kinetic and potential energy, right?
That makes it too difficult to analyze, so we instead choose points where the block is motionless.
So my biggest mistake was saying that the falling block only has kinetic energy, when it also has potential energy, right?
Is this reasoning right? Thanks for responding! :)

Exactly. When your block comes to the top of the spring, it has some kinetic energy and potential energy mgx

You could also calculate it the way you started it. You could observe the situation from start to the end of compression. I that situation you would have:

\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}+mgx=\frac{1}{2}kx^{2}
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top