Understanding Vertical Mounted Spring Calculations with Conservation of Energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlueCardBird
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spring Vertical
AI Thread Summary
In discussions about vertically mounted spring calculations using conservation of energy, gravitational potential energy is often neglected because its effect is linear and can be simplified in certain scenarios. The gravitational force primarily alters the equilibrium position of the spring without significantly impacting the algebra involved in basic calculations. When analyzing harmonic motion, gravitational potential energy may be overlooked, but it is crucial in cases where a mass falls onto a spring. The mass of the spring itself can influence the system's oscillation period, and its distribution can complicate the analysis. Ultimately, while gravitational potential energy is sometimes disregarded for simplicity, it remains relevant in specific contexts.
BlueCardBird
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Can anyone briefly explain to me when using conservation of energy to calculate for vertically mounted spring questions, why gravitational potential energy is neglected?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you mean as it pertains to the mass of the spring? Usually you are told the spring is light and some other mass is affected by both spring and gravity. Sure, you could allow for the spring's weight too, and probably would in a real situation, but it usually doesn't add anything very interesting to the algebra.
 
BlueCardBird said:
Can anyone briefly explain to me when using conservation of energy to calculate for vertically mounted spring questions, why gravitational potential energy is neglected?

Because the gravity field just changes the height that the hanging mass balances. So gravity's effective action is just to expand the natural length of the spring. Now, because the gravity potential is linear, equal changes in height result in the same change in gravity potential, regardless of the height those changes happen. To clarify the above, take a look at these equations about the equation of motion and the total potential energy in 2 cases: a) in absence of gravity and b) with gravity. We assume that z = 0 is the point where the hanging mass experiences no spring force in the absence of gravity.

a) F = -k z
V = \frac{1}{2} k z2

b) F = -k z - m g = -k (z+z0) , where z0 = mg/k
you see that the mass balances now at z = -z0 , a little longer than before. So you can study the problem using the new variable ζ = z + z0 . The equation of motion will be:
F = -k ζ
which is equivalent to a) case.


V = \frac{1}{2} k z2 + m g z = \frac{1}{2} k (z+z0)2 - \frac{1}{2} k z02

Since constant terms in potential energy have no physical significance, you can drop them and define the equivalent potential function:
V* = \frac{1}{2} k ζ2

Compare the equation of motion and the potential function in a) and b) cases, and get your answer!
 
The mass of the spring will, however, have an effect on the period of oscillation because it's part of the oscillating system.
 
If the mass of the spring is regarded as a distributed parameter along its length, then including the spring mass can add significant complexity to the analysis. Sometimes what people do to take this into account is to approximate the spring as a sequence of masses joined by massless springs.
 
BlueCardBird said:
Can anyone briefly explain to me when using conservation of energy to calculate for vertically mounted spring questions, why gravitational potential energy is neglected?

The way you formulate it, it is symply not true. In some problems you do not neglect the gravitational PE.
If you are talking about harmonic motion, maybe. If you are looking at a problem like a bloc falls from 2 m on top of a spring, then no, you don't neglect it.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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...
Back
Top