Vertically oscillating spring-mass system

  • Thread starter Thread starter lonewolf5999
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Oscillating System
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a vertically oriented spring-mass system exhibiting simple harmonic motion (SHM). The original poster analyzes the relationship between the maximum displacements during upward and downward motions, questioning whether they must be equal due to the nature of SHM.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use energy considerations to derive a relationship between the displacements during oscillation. Some participants question the validity of cancelling terms in the equations and the definition of equilibrium positions. Others suggest that careful consideration of potential energy and equilibrium points is necessary for accurate analysis.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the implications of defining equilibrium positions and potential energy in the context of the spring-mass system. Some guidance has been offered regarding the treatment of equilibrium positions, and a clarification has emerged that the maximum heights in oscillation may indeed be equidistant from a defined equilibrium position.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the definitions of equilibrium positions in relation to the spring's behavior when a mass is attached. Participants are also addressing the implications of these definitions on the analysis of energy and displacement in the system.

lonewolf5999
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Consider a mass hanging freely from a spring, oriented vertically downwards. We know that because the restoring force acting on the mass is directly proportional to the displacement of the mass from the equilibrium position, i.e. the extension of the spring (F=kx), the system exhibits simple harmonic motion.

Suppose that we pull it down by a distance of a from its equilibrium position, and then release it. Using energy considerations, and letting b be the maximum displacement of the mass from the equilibrium position during the upward portion of its motion,

(1/2)ka2 - mga = (1/2)kb2 + mgb, and solving,
a - b = 2mg/k

So, a must be greater than b.

Is this analysis correct, and if so, does this mean that systems executing SHM need not have equal amplitudes in the different oscillation directions? (e.g. during the upward motion, its amplitude is different from that of its downward motion)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Try solving the equation again, and don't cancel out factors.

The amplitude is the same on either side of the equilibrium because this is how it is defined. It is the position with minimum potential energy so greatest kinetic energy.
 
(k/2) (a2 - b 2) = mg(a+b)

(k/2)(a+b)(a-b) = mg(a+b)

Cancelling a+b and rearranging, a-b = 2mg/k

I don't see what's wrong with cancelling the a+b factor. It's not zero, so unless my initial equation was wrong, what's wrong with the analysis? In any case, at the amplitude position the system has greatest potential energy, not kinetic energy as you said.
 
Here's the catch: the equilibrium position of the mass is not at x = 0. Of course, you could define your coordinate system such that x = 0 corresponds to the equilibrium position of the mass, but then the potential energy is not
U = \frac{1}{2}kx^2 + mgx
but rather
U = \frac{1}{2}kx^2 + mgx + Cx + D
where C and D are constants. I leave it to you to figure out what their values would be.

EDIT: actually, I thought about it some more, and maybe some more detail is in order. There are really two equilibrium positions involved in this problem: (1) the equilibrium position of the spring itself, with no mass on it, and (2) the equilibrium position of the spring with the mass on it. When you define the potential energy of the system as
U = \frac{1}{2}kx^2 + mgx
you're implicitly deciding to measure distances from equilibrium position #1. But when the mass is on the spring, that position is no longer an equilibrium. That's why you get a difference between the maximum height and the minimum height, because you're measuring from a point which is not an equilibrium point of the weighted spring.

If you are careful about defining your distances and reference points, you should find that equilibrium position #2 is in fact equidistant from the highest and lowest points of the motion.
 
Last edited:
Ah. That explains everything perfectly. So that's what I was missing.

If the spring extension at equilibrium is A, then if we define x to be the displacement from the equilibrium position, we have
U = (k/2)(A+x)2 - mgx, assuming x to be positive in the downward direction.

Expanding this expression gives the constants C and D.

I followed through my earlier analysis using a and b as the amplitudes in the upward and downward directions, and did manage to obtain a result showing a and b are equal. Thanks for your help, diazona!
 
You're welcome :wink: That's a surprisingly tricky situation when you think about it in detail - it took me a while to come up with my last post.
 
I was trapped in this same tricky oscillation and I'd like to show you my http://www.scribd.com/doc/22857822/Oscilacion-vertical" to the problem, which is grounded solely on Newton's Second Law and Hook's Law, with no calculus at all.
I found this discussion really helpful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my apologizes for resurecting this old thread, but this concept has confused me for much of my high school and undergraduate years!

i've browsed dozens of pf threads and this one has the best answer!
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
983
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K