What is the significance of the 1/2 in Hooke's Law integration?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the significance of the factor of 1/2 in the context of Hooke's Law and its integration, exploring the relationship between kinetic energy and the force exerted by a spring. Participants examine whether the expression for kinetic energy is derived through integration or differentiation and the implications of this for understanding the spring constant.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the integration of the kinetic energy expression, suggesting that it should involve a different power of velocity if it were an integration.
  • Another participant asserts that the expression for kinetic energy is indeed derived from integration, encouraging the derivation of (1/2)mv² to show the relationship to mvv' or mv dv/dt.
  • A third participant elaborates on the application of the chain rule in differentiating (1/2)mv², explaining how it relates to the force and motion of the spring.
  • One participant clarifies the distinction between the spring constant 'k' as a measure of stiffness rather than strength, questioning the focus of the original inquiry on simple harmonic motion versus Hooke's Law.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the expression involves integration or not, with some asserting it is an integration and others questioning this interpretation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of the textbook explanation and the definitions involved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the clarity of the textbook referenced, particularly regarding the integration and differentiation processes. The discussion also highlights potential confusion between concepts of strength and stiffness in the context of Hooke's Law.

g.lemaitre
Messages
267
Reaction score
2
Screenshot2012-08-06at42820AM.png


Do you see where it says

m(dv/dt)v = (d/dt)(.5mv^2)

If it's an integration which I don't think it is then I would think it should be

(d/dt)((mv^3)/3) because you're taking the two v's and adding an additional power. I don't think it is an integration because it says right there in the book that you can't integrate, so if it's now then where does the 1/2 come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi g.lemaitre
It is indeed an integration and it is correct
just derive (1/2mv²) and you will see that you get back to mvv' or mv dv/dt
Cheers...
 
It's a case of the chain rule:

[itex]\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{2}mv^2\right)\:=\:\frac{d}{dv}\left(\frac{1}{2}mv^2\right)\:\times\frac{dv}{dt}\:=\:mv\frac{dv}{dt}[/itex].

Your textbook isn't very clear. You could integrate the left hand side of the equation wrt t, before multiplying by v. It's the right hand side that you can't integrate wrt to t until you've multiplied by v. That's why you need to multiply through by v. Then the left hand side integrates (wrt t) to give [itex]\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/itex]. The right hand integrates to give [itex]-\frac{1}{2}kx^2[/itex] + constant. Try differentiating this wrt t using the chain rule!
 
Last edited:
The spring constant 'k' is not a measure of the STRENGTH of the spring.
It is a measure of the STIFFNESS... units are N/m
The strength is measured by ultimate tensile stress
edit...is this question about simple harmonic motion?
or hookes law (elasticity)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K