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 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Back
Top