Understanding the Relationship Between a Compressed Spring and Attached Wall

  • Thread starter Thread starter andyrk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spring Wall
AI Thread Summary
When a spring is compressed against a wall, both the wall and the person exert forces on the spring, leading to its compression. However, the wall remains stationary while the person's hand moves, which simplifies the analysis to attribute the compression primarily to the person's action. The spring's compression is defined by the relationship F = -kx, where k is the spring constant and x is the change in length from its rest position. It is not possible to determine how much each hand compresses the spring individually, as the compression is a result of the distance between the two ends rather than the individual contributions of each force. Ultimately, the interaction between the wall and the person can be viewed as a cooperative effect in compressing the spring.
andyrk
Messages
658
Reaction score
5
When we compress a spring attached to a wall, the wall also exerts the same force as we do, otherwise the spring would accelerate (which it doesn't). So does that mean the wall compresses the spring? If not, why? If yes, then why do we have compression of x (done by us) only?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Both the wall and yourself have to exert a force on the spring for it to compress. The difference between is that the wall doesn't move while you yourself do.
 
How can the spring not compress even though the wall is applying force on it?
 
From the point of view of whichever hand is doing the compressing, it is in fact the wall that is compressing the spring, while it itself isn't moving.
 
You mean to say even though I am compressing the spring, it is actually the wall that is compressing it? Then the question again arises..why is my hand not compressing the spring? Both wall and hand should compress because of Hooke's Law.
 
andyrk said:
You mean to say even though I am compressing the spring, it is actually the wall that is compressing it?

I'm saying that it doesn't matter who you say does the compressing. Both you and the wall are exerting a force on the spring, so it's probably most accurate to say both of you are compressing it. However, we live in a world where we like to make things easier by saying that it is you that does the compressing, and not the wall. That way you can simplify the equations, making things like Hooke's law much easier to work with. Only having to worry about the distance one end of the spring moves is much easier than worrying about both ends.
 
andyrk said:
why do we have compression of x (done by us) only?
andyrk said:
Both wall and hand should compress because of Hooke's Law.
If you're asking why the compression is x=F/k and not x=2F/k, then it's simply a matter of the way the spring constant, k, is defined.
 
String compression is a property of the string as a whole and needs two forces, one on each side. The spring constant relates the force to the compression/extension of the string, i.e., the difference between the spring rest length and the spring's actual length.
 
Drakkith said:
I'm saying that it doesn't matter who you say does the compressing. Both you and the wall are exerting a force on the spring, so it's probably most accurate to say both of you are compressing it. However, we live in a world where we like to make things easier by saying that it is you that does the compressing, and not the wall. That way you can simplify the equations, making things like Hooke's law much easier to work with. Only having to worry about the distance one end of the spring moves is much easier than worrying about both ends.
What if I say that I don't want to make things easier and look at things just the way they are? Would it then mean that I compressed the spring by ##x/2## even though I clearly compressed it by ##x##?
 
  • #10
andyrk said:
What if I say that I don't want to make things easier and look at things just the way they are? Would it then mean that I compressed the spring by ##x/2## even though I clearly compressed it by ##x##?

No. You'd need to modify the spring equation somehow.
 
  • #11
It would always remain ##F = -kx ##.
 
  • #12
Look, it is very very simple, ##x## is the difference between the spring length and the spring rest length, ##F## is the force (on either side) and ##k## the spring constant. Do not overcomplicate things!
 
  • #13
Orodruin said:
Look, it is very very simple, ##x## is the difference between the spring length and the spring rest length, ##F## is the force (on either side) and ##k## the spring constant. Do not overcomplicate things!
If I take a spring in my hand and stretch it a length x more than its original length, with both my hands. Now, do both my hands experience an inward force ##F = -kx##?
 
  • #14
Orodruin said:
Look, it is very very simple, ##x## is the difference between the spring length and the spring rest length, ##F## is the force (on either side) and ##k## the spring constant. Do not overcomplicate things!

Ah, so you wouldn't have to change the spring equation. Good to know.
 
  • #15
But no one replied to post #13.
 
  • #16
andyrk said:
If I take a spring in my hand and stretch it a length x more than its original length, with both my hands. Now, do both my hands experience an inward force F=−kxF = -kx?

Yes .
 
  • #17
andyrk said:
But no one replied to post #13.
Orodruin said:
Look, it is very very simple, ##x## is the difference between the spring length and the spring rest length, ##F## is the force (on either side) and ##k## the spring constant. Do not overcomplicate things!
Please read the posts better.
 
  • #18
andyrk said:
But no one replied to post #13.

PF is a collection of volunteers who are selflessly devoting their time to helping you understand. They are not your servants to be berated when they didn't answer your question after a mere twenty minutes.

As it happens, post #12 has the exact answer to your post #13.
 
  • #19
I'm going back to your original post, because I think I can help relate the kinematics to the force in a little different way that might work for you. The tension in the spring is always going to be T = kΔL, where ΔL is the change in length, relative to the original unextended length. If ΔL is negative, then the spring is in compression, and the tension is negative.

Let xL represent the x coordinate of the left end of the spring at time t, and let xR represent the x coordinate of the right end of the spring at time t. Let the original unextended length of the spring be L0. So we are going to allow the possibility that both ends of the spring can move, and not just one end. So the left end can move by moving your left hand, and the right end can move by moving your right hand. With this description, the change in length of the spring ΔL relative to its original unextended length is given by:
$$ΔL=x_R-x_L-L_0$$
It doesn't matter which hand is moving and in which direction, the only thing that matters is the distance between your left hand and your right hand, xR-xL. The tension that each hand feels is then given by:
$$T=k(x_R-x_L-L_0)$$
If the term in parenthesis is negative, then the spring is in compression.

Hope this helps.

Chet
 
  • #20
Chestermiller said:
I'm going back to your original post, because I think I can help relate the kinematics to the force in a little different way that might work for you. The tension in the spring is always going to be T = kΔL, where ΔL is the change in length, relative to the original unextended length. If ΔL is negative, then the spring is in compression, and the tension is negative.

Let xL represent the x coordinate of the left end of the spring at time t, and let xR represent the x coordinate of the right end of the spring at time t. Let the original unextended length of the spring be L0. So we are going to allow the possibility that both ends of the spring can move, and not just one end. So the left end can move by moving your left hand, and the right end can move by moving your right hand. With this description, the change in length of the spring ΔL relative to its original unextended length is given by:
$$ΔL=x_R-x_L-L_0$$
It doesn't matter which hand is moving and in which direction, the only thing that matters is the distance between your left hand and your right hand, xR-xL. The tension that each hand feels is then given by:
$$T=k(x_R-x_L-L_0)$$
If the term in parenthesis is negative, then the spring is in compression.

Hope this helps.

Chet
So just applying a force on one end doesn't mean that the spring would extend or compress?
 
  • #21
andyrk said:
So just applying a force on one end doesn't mean that the spring would extend or compress?
Yes, that's right. It isn't possible to apply a force to one end of a mass-less spring to try to get it to extend or compress, without in some way anchoring the other end. In one case, you've anchored it by attaching it to the wall, and, in the other case, you've anchored it by holding it with your other hand. Or, you could move both ends simultaneously, but the forces on your two hands would always be of the same magnitude.

The characteristic of a mass-less spring is that the forces at the two ends are always equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Chet
 
  • #22
Very interesting and fascinating. But isn't that true for springs that have mass as well?
 
  • #23
andyrk said:
Very interesting and fascinating. But isn't that true for springs that have mass as well?
No. For springs that have mass and involve acceleration, the force on one end is not equal to the force on the other end, and the tension varies along the spring. You saw that kind of deal last week when you analyzed the tension variations along a rotating rod that has mass.

Chet
 
  • #24
But I don't think the spring can compress or extend that way then. Also, if you compress a spring with both hands..so that its length changes by x, both the hands experience a force ##F = -kx## in opposite direction. But how do we know how much did each hand compress the spring individually?
 
  • #25
andyrk said:
But I don't think the spring can compress or extend that way then. Also, if you compress a spring with both hands..so that its length changes by x, both the hands experience a force ##F = -kx## in opposite direction. But how do we know how much did each hand compress the spring individually?
It is not possible to identify the individual amount that each hand compresses the spring. There is no such thing. The only thing that matters is the distance between the two hands, and not their individual locations. For example, if you hold your left hand fixed and move your right hand to the left x inches, you might think that your right hand has compressed the spring. But now, what if you move both hands to the right x inches, while holding the length of the spring fixed. The spring still has the same force, but now it looks like the right hand was fixed, and the left hand compressed the spring. If someone had left the room before any compression was done, and then came back afterwards, they would not be able to tell.

Chet
 
  • #26
Chestermiller said:
But now, what if you move both hands to the right x inches, while holding the length of the spring fixed.
I can't visualize this situation.
 
  • #27
andyrk said:
I can't visualize this situation.
Sorry, then all I can say is that it is not possible to identify the individual amount that each hand compresses the spring.

With regard to the rod example, the rod is just the same as a spring with mass that has a very large spring constant (i.e., very stiff).

Chet
 
  • #28
andyrk said:
I can't visualize this situation.
If you push harder with your left hand than you push back with you right, then your left hand will just end up pushing the spring and all (including your right hand) to the right.
 
  • #29
andyrk said:
But how do we know how much did each hand compress the spring individually?
The same way you know how much noise each hand makes individually, when you clap them.
 
  • Like
Likes Jon Richfield, andyrk, Nathanael and 1 other person
  • #30
andyrk said:
But how do we know how much did each hand compress the spring individually?

The problem is that 'how much each hand compresses the spring' is not a well-define statement. The force exerted by each hand is identical and as the spring compresses each hand moves inwards relative to its center of mass by the same amount. So according to the spring, each hand compresses it by the same amount.

However, if I keep my right hand hand stationary with respect to my body, while my left hand moves inward and pushes the spring, from my point of view I might say that it is my left hand that does the compressing since my right hand does not move.

Both of these are potentially correct descriptions.
 
  • #31
Compare to hanging a mass in the end of a massless spring in a gravitational field. If you hold the other end, the spring extends because there are forces on both ends. If you let it go, it simply accelerates with the mass, so the force of gravity on the mas is not enough to extend the spring.
 
  • #32
To expand on Drakkith's post #30, the spring condition situation can also be expressed in terms of the following kind of terminology:

1. As reckoned by an observer from a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to your left hand, it is your right hand that compressed the spring, and there is nothing that could convince him otherwise.
2. As reckoned by an observer from a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to the COM of the spring, both your hands compressed the spring equally, and there is nothing that could convince him otherwise.
3. As reckoned by an observer from a frame of reference that is at rest with respect to your right hand, it is your left hand that compressed the spring, and there is nothing that could convince him otherwise.

Chet
 
  • #33
Can someone provide a link which describes in detail everything about a spring in physics terms? Because the book I have says nothing about the fact that spring exerts the same force in opposite direction at both ends, but it uses this fact to solve many problems that follow it.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
andyrk said:
Can someone provide a link which describes in detail everything about a spring in physics terms? Because the book I have says nothing about the fact that spring exerts the same force in opposite direction at both ends, but it uses this fact to solve many problems that follow it.
My suspicion is that you aren't reading your source correctly, but try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_(device)
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
My suspicion is that you aren't reading your source correctly, but try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_(device)
Even this doesn't say anything about the spring applying equal and opposite forces at both ends.
 
  • #36
andyrk said:
Even this doesn't say anything about the spring applying equal and opposite forces at both ends.
Springs are not the only things that apply equal and opposite forces at both ends. So do ropes, gloves, shoes and bathroom scales. As long as the thing in the middle either has negligible mass or negligible acceleration then this is a consequence of Newton's second law: F = ma. If the spring is not accelerating (a is approximately zero) and has a small mass (m is approximately zero), it follows that the net force on it must be approximately zero. That means that the force on the one end is approximately equal and opposite to the force on the other. This fact is sufficiently basic that it is not mentioned in articles describing springs.
 
  • #37
andyrk said:
Even this doesn't say anything about the spring applying equal and opposite forces at both ends.
Maybe its assumed to be too obvious to state explicitly. Like tension in a string or compression of a rod: there is only one force, so there is no need to say that it acts in both directions. That would be redundant. IE:
When a coil spring is compressed or stretched slightly from rest, the force it exerts is approximately proportional to its change in length (this approximation breaks down for larger deflections).
"The force it exerts" means there is only one force.
 
  • #38
Yeah. So maybe the book I have does the same thing. But I think this should have been stated to make things clear from the very beginning.
 
  • #39
andyrk said:
Yeah. So maybe the book I have does the same thing. But I think this should have been stated to make things clear from the very beginning.
I disagree. What you are suggesting means teaching all of physics from scratch every time one wants to introduce a new concept. A one-semester, first physics class would only cover two weeks of material if that were how it was done (and later classes could cover nothing new because by the time they finished their review, the semester would be over!)! It is entirely reasonable - indeed essential - that people build on more basic concepts when learning new concepts.
 
  • #40
andyrk said:
Yeah. So maybe the book I have does the same thing. But I think this should have been stated to make things clear from the very beginning.
Were Newton's laws not stated clearly from the beginning? Newton's laws do not stop simply because you are learning about springs. Everything that you have asked about in this thread comes from the spring law and Newton's laws.
 
  • #41
DaleSpam said:
Were Newton's laws not stated clearly from the beginning? Newton's laws do not stop simply because you are learning about springs. Everything that you have asked about in this thread comes from the spring law and Newton's laws.
How will you explain both hands experiencing the same force with Newton's Laws?
 
  • #42
andyrk said:
How will you explain both hands experiencing the same force with Newton's Laws?
It's Newton's 1st and 3rd laws:
wiki said:
1st Law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

3rd Law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
 
  • #43
Yeah. So what I am saying is, what makes the forces on the two hands equal? If they weren't the spring would accelerate and not extend or compress. But why can't it compress/extend while still having unequal forces at both the ends?
 
  • #44
andyrk said:
Yeah. So what I am saying is, what makes the forces on the two hands equal? If they weren't the spring would accelerate and not extend or compress. But why can't it compress/extend while still having unequal forces at both the ends?
If the spring is in the act of compressing or extending, the forces can be unequal. Chestermiller said that in post #23.
 
  • #45
Let us suppose Fnet on spring is not zero . Mass of ideal spring equals zero .

So using Fnet = m*a , if m =0 , a will become infinite . This is not possible .
 
  • #46
andyrk said:
Yeah. So what I am saying is, what makes the forces on the two hands equal? If they weren't the spring would accelerate and not extend or compress. But why can't it compress/extend while still having unequal forces at both the ends?
As several posters have alluded to earlier, if the whole system (hands + spring) isn't accelerating, then the forces on the two hands have to be equal just by virtue of the fact that the spring isn't accelerating, hence the net force on the spring must be zero.

Anyway, if the system is allowed to accelerate to the side, then consider this: the force it takes to compress the spring increases with compression (Hooke's Law: f = -kx), i.e., no matter what amount of force you imagine pushing with to compress the spring, the spring will compress to the point where its springiness is sufficient to resist further compression. At that point, the spring will be transmitting all the force to the other side and you'll be pushing one hand with the other.
 
  • #47
andyrk said:
Yeah. So what I am saying is, what makes the forces on the two hands equal? If they weren't the spring would accelerate and not extend or compress.
If the extension/compression is asymmetrical, then the center of mass can be accelerating.
 
  • #48
andyrk said:
Yeah. So what I am saying is, what makes the forces on the two hands equal? If they weren't the spring would accelerate and not extend or compress. But why can't it compress/extend while still having unequal forces at both the ends?

The force exerted on the spring by your left hand is equal and opposite to the force exerted on your left hand by the spring. This is exactly in accordance with Newton's laws.
The force exerted on the spring by your right hand is equal and opposite to the force exerted on your right hand by the spring. Again, this is exactly in accordance with Newton's laws.

Now, the force exerted by your left hand on the spring does not have to be equal to the force exerted by your right hand on the spring. If the two forces exerted on the spring are NOT equal, then the spring will accelerate, along with one of your hands. Indeed, for a small amount of time between the static and the non-static, but non-accelerating situations, the forces are unequal. Thus, one of your hands along with the spring accelerates. Now, when I say that the spring accelerates, I mean that the center of mass of the spring accelerates and the entire spring begins to compress.

Now, after this acceleration is over, you could reduce whichever force is doing the accelerating so that both your hand and the center of mass of the spring are now moving, but not accelerating. During this steady-velocity phase (remember, the spring's center of mass is moving) the forces exerted by each hand on the spring are equal to each other. Because the spring force increases as you compress it, this requires a steady increase in force applied by your hands to balance out the spring force according to the spring equation.
 
  • #49
Everyone has written such complicated replies. I was simply saying that if the spring is mass-less, then unequal forces at its two ends can never lead to any compression/expansion of the spring. Why is this true?
 
  • #50
andyrk said:
Everyone has written such complicated replies.

Because science is complicated. Even the basics science are MUCH more complicated than many people think.

I was simply saying that if the spring is mass-less, then unequal forces at its two ends can never lead to any compression/expansion of the spring. Why is this true?

It's not true. I don't know why you think it is.
Edit: Standby on that. Lemme read Chester's post on the last page again.
Edit 2: After checking, I'm fairly certain what I said is correct.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top