Understanding Work in Physics: Misconceptions and Correct Approaches

  • Thread starter Thread starter GarrettB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Work
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding work in the context of a spring system governed by Hooke's law. Initially, the user attempted to calculate work by using a constant force approach, which proved ineffective due to the variable nature of the spring force as it stretches. The correct method involves using the formula for work done by a spring, specifically 1/2kx^2, which accounts for the changing force. Additionally, the importance of integrating the force over the displacement is highlighted to accurately determine the work done. This emphasizes the need to recognize that the force exerted by the spring changes as it is stretched from its equilibrium position.
GarrettB
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Hi,

So I was able to answer both of these questions eventually, but the second one gave me some trouble. At first, I tried finding the force that the spring would be applying at that stretched length (3.81cm), knowing that the force done by external agent must be equal and opposite. I then tried multiplying the applied force by the distance it would do work across in order to find the amount of work. Unfortunately this did not work and instead realized I could find the work done by the spring (1/2kx^2) directly instead. I'm wondering, conceptually, why is the first approach wrong? Thanks a lot.

When a 3.89kg mass is hung vertically on a certain light spring that obeys Hooke's law, the spring stretches 2.87cm. If the 3.89kg mass is removed how far will the spring stretch if a 1.48kg is hung on it instead? 1.09×10-2 m

You are correct. Previous Tries
How much work must an external agent do to stretch the spring 3.81cm from its unstretched position? 9.65×10-1 J
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So imagine you start the spring at equilibrium. Now, slowly start to stretch the spring, is the force the same or is it changing as you move it away from equilibrium? Your technique of force times distance will work (no pun intended), but you have to do a little integration. You should do this integration of the force along the displacement and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the result.
 
Oh right, the force is always changing. Thanks for the insight!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
24K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K