What is the role of gravity in a hanging spring's potential energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aaaa202
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Spring
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the role of gravity in the potential energy of a hanging spring system, particularly after a collision. Participants are exploring the implications of gravitational potential energy in relation to elastic potential energy and kinetic energy in the context of oscillations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the assumptions made regarding energy conservation, particularly the treatment of gravitational potential energy during the motion of the spring. There are discussions about the equilibrium position and how gravitational effects influence the system's energy calculations.

Discussion Status

Some participants are seeking clarification on the mathematical treatment of gravitational potential energy and its relevance to the overall energy of the system. There is an ongoing exploration of how the gravitational potential affects the equilibrium position and the interpretation of potential energy terms.

Contextual Notes

There are references to specific equations and concepts, such as the relationship between gravitational potential energy and the equilibrium position of the spring. Participants are also considering the implications of including or excluding gravitational potential in their energy calculations.

aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Look at the attached picture. I DO realize that this has been brought up several times, but there's a thing i still don't understand.
As you can see, I have solved the problem already but that was not without using several hints. Going through each hint at a time i solved the problem using conservation of energy after the collision. But but but! I don't agree with the energy assumptions they made. They made me use the elastical potentiel energy relative to the new equilibrium point as well as the kinetic energy and equaled that ½kA^2 where A denotes the amplitude.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LOSS IN POTENTIAL ENERGY DURING THE DOWNFALL? This depends on A as far as i can see making you need to solve a quadratic equation..
Anyways I got the right as you can see, but I don't get it...
 

Attachments

  • Unavngivet.png
    Unavngivet.png
    30.7 KB · Views: 473
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
Look at the attached picture. I DO realize that this has been brought up several times, but there's a thing i still don't understand.
As you can see, I have solved the problem already but that was not without using several hints. Going through each hint at a time i solved the problem using conservation of energy after the collision. But but but! I don't agree with the energy assumptions they made. They made me use the elastical potentiel energy relative to the new equilibrium point as well as the kinetic energy and equaled that ½kA^2 where A denotes the amplitude.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LOSS IN POTENTIAL ENERGY DURING THE DOWNFALL? This depends on A as far as i can see making you need to solve a quadratic equation..
Anyways I got the right as you can see, but I don't get it...
So ...

What are you looking for from us?
 
I said, that the solution did not involve using the fall in gravitational potential energy from the point where the ham and plate collide down to the lowest point of the oscillation. Why is that not used?
 
aaaa202 said:
It said, that the solution did not involve using the fall in gravitational potential energy from the point where the ham and plate collide down to the lowest point of the oscillation. Why is that not used?

It's not wrong to include the gravitational potential. However, all that including it does is to change the equilibrium position of the system. This merely represents adding a constant force.

The potential energy function, Vsg(y), with the spring and gravitational potentials included is:
[itex]\displaystyle V_{\text{s g}}(y)=\frac{1}{2}ky^2+mgy[/itex]​
This function is quadratic in y, and has a minimum at [itex]\displaystyle y=-\frac{mg}{k}\,.[/itex] The coefficient of y2 is (1/2)k whether or not the gravitational potential is included.

This can also be seen by completing the square.
[itex]\displaystyle V_{\text{s g}}(y)=\frac{1}{2}ky^2+mgy[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =\frac{k}{2}\left(y*2+\frac{2mg}{k}y\right)[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle = \frac{k}{2}\left[y^2+\frac{2mg}{k}y+\left(\frac{mg}{k}\right)^2-\left(\frac{mg}{k}\right)^2 \right][/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle = \frac{k}{2}\left(y+\frac{mg}{k}\right)^2-\frac{m^2g^2}{2k}[/itex]
Compare this with the potential function, Vs(y), for a spring only.
[itex]\displaystyle V_{\text{s}}(y)=\frac{k}{2}y^2[/itex]​
Adding a constant term to a potential function doesn't change the potential function's effect. So the only effect of adding the spring is to shift the equilibrium position.
 
Hmm I still don't get it to be honest.
I do realize that the effect of gravity on a hanging spring is that it just changes the original equilibrium point of the spring - i.e. the motion is still SHM but around a lower point than had the spring laid horizontally.
But now you're saying as far as I can tell, that also the energy does nothing. So let's review: I have included the spring potential energy as well as the kinetic. What's the reason that the gravitational potential doesn't matter? Well okay you just explained that up there, but can you maybe do it less mathematically and more using intuitive, logical arguments. You've been a great help so far btw
Edit: thought about it a little more. If you include the gravitational potential the ham and plate would definitely compress the spring more. But why on Earth would they oscillate around another point? I mean, we did calculate a new equilibrium point when solving the assignment, which was using the equation mham + mplate = ky
So what equation would then describe this new equilibrium point, that you're talking about? :)
 
aaaa202 said:
Hmm I still don't get it to be honest.
...

But now you're saying as far as I can tell, that also the energy does nothing. So let's review: I have included the spring potential energy as well as the kinetic. What's the reason that the gravitational potential doesn't matter? Well okay you just explained that up there, but can you maybe do it less mathematically and more using intuitive, logical arguments. You've been a great help so far btw.
...

:)
No, it's not the case that the energy does nothing. Adding or subtracting a constant term to the potential energy function does nothing as far as the motion of a object is concerned. For instance, when using mgh for gravitational potential, it doesn't matter what point (elevation) you use for h=0 (the point at which gravitational P.E. is zero), what matters is the difference in P.E. from one position to another.

I'll try to get back with a couple of graphs of the potentials for this problem which may be helpful.
 
Let me add a bit to what SammyS already explained.
aaaa202 said:
Hmm I still don't get it to be honest.
I do realize that the effect of gravity on a hanging spring is that it just changes the original equilibrium point of the spring - i.e. the motion is still SHM but around a lower point than had the spring laid horizontally.
OK
But now you're saying as far as I can tell, that also the energy does nothing. So let's review: I have included the spring potential energy as well as the kinetic. What's the reason that the gravitational potential doesn't matter?
How did you calculate the spring PE? From the unstretched position? If you calculated it from the new equilibrium position using 1/2kx2, realize that that PE term already includes gravity. (Pure spring PE alone would be measured from the unstretched position of the spring.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K