Weird 2-spring problem with VERY limited data

  • Thread starter Thread starter McFate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data Weird
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving two springs in a "v" shape with a 500g mass attached, where one spring stretches 9mm and the other 23mm. Participants express skepticism about calculating the spring constants without knowing the angles of the springs, as the stretching depends significantly on these angles. It is noted that the problem is more complex due to the need for assumptions about weight distribution and angles, which can lead to varying results. The consensus suggests that without additional measurements, such as the distance between the pegs, it is unlikely to derive a definitive solution. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the problem may not be solvable with the limited data provided.
McFate
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Two springs are hung in a "v" shape, and a 500g mass is attached to the point of the v.

spring-prob.jpg


One spring is observed to stretch 9mm, the other 23mm.

Students are NOT permitted to measure any angles, before or after the weight is attached.

Is it possible to calculate the spring constants of the two springs?

Homework Equations



F = -kx (Hooke's law)

F = k1*x1*sin(θ) + k2*x2*sin(∅) (Vertical component of force if the two springs' angles were known.)

The Attempt at a Solution



The problem doesn't seem solvable to me. If the angle of the springs from horizontal is very small, then the stretching will be the equivalent of many times the weight that is actually applied. At 30 degrees from vertical, EACH spring stretches as much as it would if it had a 500g weight pulling on it vertically. At smaller angles, each stretches further yet.

For example, at 10 degrees for both springs:

F = k1*x1*sin(θ) + k2*x2*sin(∅)
0.5*9.8 N = (k1)*0.009m*.173 + (k2)*0.023m*.173
... the ".173" (sin(10)) means that each stretches about 3x what it would with the entire weight hanging vertically on that spring alone.

If the angle of the springs from vertical is very small, then each will more or less carry a share of the weight, and both will stretch less than they would if they carried the weight alone.

Note that this is an "engineering" class rather than a physics class, so I don't think that the answer has to be rigorous or exact. But as far as I can tell, you could make various assumptions (each spring carries about half of the weight, each spring carries a share in inverse proportion to the amount stretched, both angles about 45 degrees, both angles about 60 degrees, one 45 and the other 60 degrees, etc.) that yield wildly different results.

Is there something obvious that I'm missing, or is this more likely a "make guesses for the things you weren't allowed to measure" sort of problem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you considered the horizontal force component's equilibrium condition?
 
Nesk said:
Have you considered the horizontal force component's equilibrium condition?

Thanks for the response.

If I had the angles of the springs, the horizontal tension being equal between the two springs would form the second equation for my two variables (k1, k2):

4.9N = k1*(0.009m)*sin(θ) + k2*(0.023m)*sin(∅)
and
k1*(0.009m)*cos(θ) = k2*(0.023m)*cos(∅)

I have the overall lengths of the two springs (had to measure that before and after the weight to figure out how much they stretched). I'm going to go back to the lab and measure the distance between the pegs. It's not something we were told we couldn't measure, and it will give me the third side of the triangle which will allow me to use those equations.

But the question I had was: IF all I had was the data given originally, is there any solution? (I think the answer is: "no.")
 
In order to measure the amount of stretch for each spring, you had to measure the un-stretched length of each spring. If you know the distance between the pegs, then you can find all the angles. (That may also be "illegal" in the eyes of the instructor.)

Compare the two configurations:
1.) The locations of the enuds of the springs with the weight hanging.

2.) The locations of the ends of the springs without the weight -- even if you reconstruct this "theoretically" using the measured nu-stretched lengths.​

Both x and y components are important for the equilibrium equations.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top