Linear Relationship b/w Spring Compression and Projectile Distance?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between spring compression and the horizontal distance traveled by a marble launched from a spring gun. It is established that the horizontal speed of the marble, once released, is constant and determined by the spring force, which follows Hook's law. The work done on the marble is converted into kinetic energy, leading to the conclusion that the velocity is proportional to the square root of the compression distance. Ultimately, the hypothesis is confirmed that the distance traveled is not a linear function of the spring compression. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the physics and mathematics involved in this scenario.
Steven60
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
I have a question about a spring gun. Suppose the barrel of a spring gun is placed horizontally at the edge of a horizontal table. You put say a marble in the barrel and compress the spring x cm and after releasing the marble it travels a horizontal distance of y cm before hitting the floor (so motion is of a projectile). My question is whether or not the horizontal distance traveled and the amount the spring is compresses make a linear relationship? If so, then how can I prove this? This is not homework.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Seems to be purely a math problem. Perhaps sketch the system and write the relevant equations needed to determine this?
 
This is a nice physics exercise - there are several physical considerations, and then some simple math.

You have two forces acting on the marble ... the spring force, which launches the marble, and gravity.

Once the marble leaves the launch tube it will have a constant "horizontal" speed - ignoring air resistance - and an initial vertical speed of zero. Call this initial horizontal speed V.

The vertical speed will increase with time due to the constant gravitational acceleration - and will hit the floor at a definite time which depends only on the height of the table. Call this duration T.

Then the distance from the table to the point of contact will be D = V x T.

The time T does not depend upon the spring force, only on the height of the table and local value g=9.8 m/s^2.

Thus you only need to determine if the speed V is proportional to the spring force; by Hook's law we know that a "good" spring obeys F = -k * X, where X is the compression/extension distance and k is the spring's constant.

If we switch to energy we have work done on marble is W = Integral[F dx] over the interval x=[0,X]. Note that the force is changing as the spring moves! So W = Integral[ k*x dx] = 1/2 k*X^2.

But this work has been converted into kinetic energy of the marble. For a marble of mass=M, and given that it is NOT rolling or spinning, then the kinetic energy is KE=1/2 M*V^2 = 1/2 k*X^2=W.

Thus V = k/M Sqrt[X]. xx Correction: xxx Make that V = Sqrt[k/M] * X.

Thus the hypothesis is true!

Thanks to dauto for noticing the mistake at the end! :-)
 
Last edited:
The equations involved will be ##d=vt## for constant ##v## (and assuming that the initial point when exiting the spring gun is defined as 0 distance), ##U_{spring}=\frac12k\Delta x^2## and ##K=\frac12mv^2##. ##\Delta x## is the amount the spring is compressed, and ##v## is the velocity of the object as it leaves the spring. This approximation assumes that the object does not stick which is a good assumption for a spring gun. Solve for ##v## to find the relationship between ##\Delta x## and ##d##.
 
UltrafastPED said:
This is a nice physics exercise - there are several physical considerations, and then some simple math.

You have two forces acting on the marble ... the spring force, which launches the marble, and gravity.

Once the marble leaves the launch tube it will have a constant "horizontal" speed - ignoring air resistance - and an initial vertical speed of zero. Call this initial horizontal speed V.

The vertical speed will increase with time due to the constant gravitational acceleration - and will hit the floor at a definite time which depends only on the height of the table. Call this duration T.

Then the distance from the table to the point of contact will be D = V x T.

The time T does not depend upon the spring force, only on the height of the table and local value g=9.8 m/s^2.

Thus you only need to determine if the speed V is proportional to the spring force; by Hook's law we know that a "good" spring obeys F = -k * X, where X is the compression/extension distance and k is the spring's constant.

If we switch to energy we have work done on marble is W = Integral[F dx] over the interval x=[0,X]. Note that the force is changing as the spring moves! So W = Integral[ k*x dx] = 1/2 k*X^2.

But this work has been converted into kinetic energy of the marble. For a marble of mass=M, and given that it is NOT rolling or spinning, then the kinetic energy is KE=1/2 M*V^2 = 1/2 k*X^2=W.

Thus V = k/M Sqrt[X].

Thus the hypothesis is false - the distance covered by the marble is NOT a linear function of the compression distance for the spring.

You made a mistake at the very end. In fact, after correcting the mistake, you proved that the hypothesis is true.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks for your replys. I actually worked this out myself and actually did the same exact steps as UltrafastPED.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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