Spring Constant and Spring Series

AI Thread Summary
The effective spring constant for springs in series is lower than that of the individual springs due to the way they share the applied force. When springs are in series, the total extension increases, resulting in a reduced effective stiffness. This relationship can be derived from Hook's Law, where the force remains constant across each spring, leading to a greater total deflection. The effective spring constant is calculated as the inverse of the sum of the inverses of each spring's constant. Understanding this concept is crucial for analyzing systems involving multiple springs.
Meadow_Lark
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I have a question about the spring constant of springs in series. Basically why is it less than the springs involved in the series? I know that when in series the spring constant is the sum of the inverse of each spring involved, but why?

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Meadow_Lark said:
I have a question about the spring constant of springs in series. Basically why is it less than the springs involved in the series? I know that when in series the spring constant is the sum of the inverse of each spring involved, but why?

thanks.
For springs in series, the effective spring constant is the inverse of the sum of the inverses of each spring constant, which with some algebraic manipulation works out to k_1k_2/(k_1 + k_2). Essentially, the force in each spring is the same as the applied force, from equilibrium considerations and free body diagrams. Google springs in series. The total extension of the system of 2 springs will be larger than if just one spring used due to the reduced effective stiffness of the longer relaxed length.
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
Can you derive the result? Start with Hook's Law. Assume massless springs so the force is the same on both, the deflection of the total must be the same as the sum of the extensions of the individual springs.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top