Vertical mass-spring system - force or energy?

AI Thread Summary
In vertical mass-spring systems, the correct equation to use is mg = kD, which is derived from Hooke's Law, while mgD = 1/2kD^2 is incorrect because it does not account for kinetic energy during oscillation. The first equation applies when a mass m hangs from a spring with spring constant k, stretching it a distance D. The second equation fails to consider the kinetic energy of the mass when it is dropped, as it assumes the mass is gently lowered without any oscillation. Conservation of energy can still be applied, focusing on kinetic energy and elastic potential energy, but requires measuring displacement from the new equilibrium point. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurately analyzing vertical mass-spring systems.
stimulus
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
A lot of problems I see have vertical mass-spring systems, where a mass m hangs from a spring with spring constant k stretching it a distance D, and usually all but one of those quantities is known. But would you equate the forces or the energies, i.e. which is the correct equation to use: mg=kD or mgD = 1/2kD^2, because the two give different answers.

Which is correct? Why is the other incorrect?

Thank You
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first one is correct in general (i mean, unless the spring itself has mass, but that would be ridiculous!). It's just Hooke's Law.

The second one is more complex. Imagine quickly hooking on the weight: the weight is going to start oscillating on the spring, with the center of oscillation being at the point given by mg = kD. However, at that point, the weight's going to have kinetic energy, which you haven't accounted for. Your equation has no kinetic energy: the only way that could happen would be if you gently lowered the block into place. If you do that, you'd be doing negative work on the block, so conservation of energy would not be valid.

If you want to work it out, conservation of energy still holds (in a way) for vertical springs! In fact, you can completely ignore GPE and just write KE + EPE = constant. The only difference is that you have to measure x in (1/2)kx^2 from the new equilibrium point, given by mg = kD. If you want, you can work that out and see why it's true; the new way of defining x accounts exactly for the GPE chance.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top