Unraveling the Mystery of Non-45 Degree Slopes

  • Thread starter Thread starter JFS321
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree Mystery
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between spring potential energy and the spring constant, particularly when the slope of the graph is not at a 45-degree angle. Participants clarify that while traditional examples often depict a 45-degree slope for simplicity, the area under the curve remains valid regardless of the angle, as it is derived from the formula for potential energy (PE = 0.5kx^2). The confusion arises from the assumption that the slope must be equal to the spring constant, but it is emphasized that the area calculation (1/2 base x height) holds true even if the spring constant varies. Integration and calculus concepts are mentioned as foundational to understanding these relationships. Ultimately, the area under the curve is consistently represented as 1/2kx^2, regardless of the slope's steepness.
JFS321
Messages
75
Reaction score
6
Hi all,

I notice the patterns such as v = 0.5at^2 and PE(spring)=0.5kx^2, etc...but, all examples I have seen show the slope (acceleration, or the spring constant, k) as being a 45 degree angle. Thus, the area of the triangle underneath the graph makes good sense (x^2 or t^2).

But, let's say we have an example where the spring constant is much larger or much smaller. Why is x^2 still valid as the base x height, if the two are not equal values?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm really confused about your question. So that people don't start answering every question except what you meant, would you mind clarifying? (also, x, not v in your first one)
What do you mean a or k is a 45 degree angle?
I'm guessing that the answer you are looking for is going involve integration. What level of math are you comfortable with?
 
Sorry for the confusion. I'm evidently tired too.

I have it answered. All it took was writing PE = 0.5 k(x) times x. I couldn't intuitively see the x^2 mentally.
 
JFS321 said:
Hi all,

I notice the patterns such as v = 0.5at^2 and PE(spring)=0.5kx^2, etc...but, all examples I have seen show the slope (acceleration, or the spring constant, k) as being a 45 degree angle. Thus, the area of the triangle underneath the graph makes good sense (x^2 or t^2).

But, let's say we have an example where the spring constant is much larger or much smaller. Why is x^2 still valid as the base x height, if the two are not equal values?

Those terms come from calculus derivations. Are you familiar yet with differential and integral calculus?
 
JFS321 said:
Hi all,

I notice the patterns such as v = 0.5at^2
that is s = 1/2at^2
(and PE(spring)=0.5kx^2, etc...but, all examples I have seen show the slope (acceleration, or the spring constant, k) as being a 45 degree angle.
when you plot v vs.t, and the acceleration is constant, then you have a linear equation v = at, and the slope of the line is the acceleration. Thus, the area of the triangle underneath the graph is 1/2 at^2. Or since F=kx, the slope of the line is k. and the PE is 1/2kx^2. But the slope is not always 45 degress, it could be much higher , say 60 degrees , but the area under the curve (straight line) is still the same, the area of the triangle.
But, let's say we have an example where the spring constant is much larger or much smaller. Why is x^2 still valid as the base x height, if the two are not equal values?
Tey don't have to be equal. The area of the triangle is still 1/2kx^2 for the spring PE case, whether k is 1 (straight line graph for f = kx, k=1, 45 degree slope, or k is greater than 1 (higher slope and thus greater angle) or less than 1, (less steep slope , angle less than 45 degrees).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top