Work done by spring forceWork done by a springWork done against gravity comes out positiveWork done by a springHow much work can a force on a spring do? (Why are two methods wrong?)Concept of work done by springWhy isn't the work done on the spring encapsulating this idea?
If I want an interpretable model, are there methods other than Linear Regression?
How to make a bold sparkline in Google Sheets?
Wrong Schengen Visa exit stamp on my passport, who can I complain to?
Usage of blank space in trade banner and text-positioning
Would it be unbalanced to increase a druid's number of uses of Wild Shape based on level?
Block diagram vs flow chart?
Does a large scratch in an ND filter affect image quality?
Where is it? - The Google Earth Challenge Ep. 3
How would you control supersoldiers in a late iron-age society?
What makes a smart phone "kosher"?
What's the benefit of prohibiting the use of techniques/language constructs that have not been taught?
How to give my students a straightedge instead of a ruler
Are there any “Third Order” acronyms used in space exploration?
Is there a tool to measure the "maturity" of a code in Git?
What is the Radroute bicycle path?
How do we know that black holes are spinning?
Why are some files not movable on Windows 10?
Read string of any length in C
Permutations in Disguise
Shouldn't countries like Russia and Canada support global warming?
How to control the output voltage of a solid state relay
How to be sure services and researches offered by the University are not becoming cases of unfair competition?
How can I use expandafter the expand the definition of this control sequence?
Is "you will become a subject matter expert" code for "you'll be working on your own 100% of the time"?
Work done by spring force
Work done by a springWork done against gravity comes out positiveWork done by a springHow much work can a force on a spring do? (Why are two methods wrong?)Concept of work done by springWhy isn't the work done on the spring encapsulating this idea?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
When we use the integral to calculate the work done by the spring force, then according to my interpretation, we are only calculating the work done by the outermost point on the spring. Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
Am I missing something? Help me out please.
newtonian-mechanics forces work spring
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
When we use the integral to calculate the work done by the spring force, then according to my interpretation, we are only calculating the work done by the outermost point on the spring. Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
Am I missing something? Help me out please.
newtonian-mechanics forces work spring
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you explain what you mean by the "outermost point"?
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When we are integrating kxdx, we are calculating the workdone on displacement dx of the point (the point which is in the natural length position, i.e the point we begin applying force in)with force kx (x varies from 0 to x for each dx).This means we are calculating the total work by spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the workdones by them.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now I think I understand what you are getting at, and will submit an answer.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question may help: physics.stackexchange.com/q/226279
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No offense but im asking regarding a different question.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
When we use the integral to calculate the work done by the spring force, then according to my interpretation, we are only calculating the work done by the outermost point on the spring. Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
Am I missing something? Help me out please.
newtonian-mechanics forces work spring
$endgroup$
When we use the integral to calculate the work done by the spring force, then according to my interpretation, we are only calculating the work done by the outermost point on the spring. Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
Am I missing something? Help me out please.
newtonian-mechanics forces work spring
newtonian-mechanics forces work spring
edited 6 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
114k13 gold badges225 silver badges1350 bronze badges
114k13 gold badges225 silver badges1350 bronze badges
asked 8 hours ago
NightKrugerNightKruger
559 bronze badges
559 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Can you explain what you mean by the "outermost point"?
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When we are integrating kxdx, we are calculating the workdone on displacement dx of the point (the point which is in the natural length position, i.e the point we begin applying force in)with force kx (x varies from 0 to x for each dx).This means we are calculating the total work by spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the workdones by them.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now I think I understand what you are getting at, and will submit an answer.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question may help: physics.stackexchange.com/q/226279
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No offense but im asking regarding a different question.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Can you explain what you mean by the "outermost point"?
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When we are integrating kxdx, we are calculating the workdone on displacement dx of the point (the point which is in the natural length position, i.e the point we begin applying force in)with force kx (x varies from 0 to x for each dx).This means we are calculating the total work by spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the workdones by them.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now I think I understand what you are getting at, and will submit an answer.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question may help: physics.stackexchange.com/q/226279
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No offense but im asking regarding a different question.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you explain what you mean by the "outermost point"?
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Can you explain what you mean by the "outermost point"?
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When we are integrating kxdx, we are calculating the workdone on displacement dx of the point (the point which is in the natural length position, i.e the point we begin applying force in)with force kx (x varies from 0 to x for each dx).This means we are calculating the total work by spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the workdones by them.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When we are integrating kxdx, we are calculating the workdone on displacement dx of the point (the point which is in the natural length position, i.e the point we begin applying force in)with force kx (x varies from 0 to x for each dx).This means we are calculating the total work by spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the workdones by them.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now I think I understand what you are getting at, and will submit an answer.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now I think I understand what you are getting at, and will submit an answer.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question may help: physics.stackexchange.com/q/226279
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question may help: physics.stackexchange.com/q/226279
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No offense but im asking regarding a different question.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No offense but im asking regarding a different question.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
When we are integrating $(-kx)dx$, we are calculating the work done on displacement $dx$ off the point which is in the natural length position, (i.e. the point we begin applying force in) with force $kx$ ($x$ varies from $0$ to $x$ for each $dx$). This means we are calculating the total work by the spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the work done by them?
The formula $int(-kx)dx$ has within it the spring constant $k$, which has units of N/m. This is, of course, a linear approximation for small displacements. The infinitesimal displacement $dx$, multiplied by the spring constant, will result in an infinitesimal amount of Work, and integration/summing of all those infinitesimals will yield a total amount of work being done over the total displacement from $0$ to $x$.
In your question, it appears you have assumed that because only the position of the end of the spring is being considered in the integration, that the rest of the spring is being ignored/not considered by the integration?
But, in fact, the spring constant $k$ includes/implicitly incorporates the force contributed by every increment of the entire spring. Every increment of the spring must be stretched with every displacement of the spring's end.
Obviously, the spring constant $k$ will not be as large if the spring consisted of only an infinitesimally small increment of spring at the end of the spring. In other words, the spring constant has the value $k$ because of the total contribution of all the increments of force that must be overcome with each $dx$ of displacement of the end of the spring.
In other words, the concept/actuality of the spring constant $k$ includes the force applied against displacement of all the increments of the spring.
Thus, when integrating the force multiplied times each increment of displacement, the integration naturally/unavoidably includes the total force applied to displace all the spring's constituent inter-atomic bonds. Thus, the Work calculated for each increment of spring-end displacement implicitly includes the force needed to displace all of the interatomic bonds in the entire spring. And subsequently, integration of all those increments of Work yields the total work done by displacing the spring against the force exerted by all the bonds within the spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Suppose that there is a spring fixed at one end and a force $F$ is applied to the spring.
The important thing is that force $F$ can be thought of as the "tension" in the spring and is the same throughout the spring.
Now consider the whole spring as three equal lengths.
Each length is subjected to a force $F$ at each end as shown in the diagram.
The work done on spring 1 by the forces stretching it by a small amount $delta x$ is $F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 2 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,2delta x - F,delta x = F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 3 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,3delta x - F,2delta x = F,delta x$.
So the total work done in stretching the three springs is $F,delta x +F,delta x+F,delta x = F,3delta x = FDelta x$ where $Delta x (=3delta x)$ is the total extension of the whole spring.
The whole spring can be cut up into as many segments as you like and then the work done extending the spring can be written as $displaystyle int_0^x_rm final F,dx$ where $x_rm final$ is the final extension of the whole spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
In essence we are doing just that. When we take the integral of $(kx)dx$ between zero (the relaxed position of the end of the spring) to $x$, the stretched position, we are macroscopically summing up the work done on the microscopic level to pull the molecules apart at each point along the length of the spring in opposition to the electrostatic forces between them.
Envision the spring being comprised of molecules connected together by microscopic springs between them. The spring constant, $k$, is the macroscopic parameter equivalent to the microscopic spring constant. The integral of $(kx)dx$ sums up all the work being done on the microscopic level in stretching the microscopic springs.
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx
What I mean is the sum of all work at the molecular level equals the total work at the macroscopic level, and the sum of all the intermolecular displacements, $dx_i$, add up to the final displacement, $x$ as @Farcher showed pictorially. Or
$$sum_i=0^nk_idx_i=frackx^22$$
Where $sum dx_i$ = $x$.
Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The restoring force doesn't depend on the relaxed length of the spring or number of particles in it. It just depends on how far it is stretched or compressed with respect to the mean position and the spring constant.
When finding the work done (potential energy stored) we just need the force which we must apply to stop the spring from relaxing, at a certain distance and hence we just need the force at that point and the small displacement $dx$ over which it acts. Finally we integrate it all to get the total work done.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The other answers are all good, but I love this question too much to pass it up:
Let's break our spring with constant $k$ into $n$ little springs with spring constant $nk$ (shown here in ASCII):
|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|$...$|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|
You can verify that the total spring constant is indeed $k$:
$$frac 1 frac 1 nk +ldots+frac 1nk = frac 1 frac n nk=k$$
since series springs are added harmonically. The surprising result is that the spring segments have a larger spring constant than the total spring.
When the total spring is stretched by $x$, each segment stretches by $x/n$.
Note that the tension in each segment is:
$$ T = (nk)(x/n) = kx $$
as it must be. Moreover, each segment has done work:
$$Delta W = (nk)big(frac x nbig)^2 = frac kx^2 n$$
so obviously:
$$W = ntimesDelta W = kx^2 $$
In the limit $nrightarrow infty$ you can see that the energy is uniformly distributed along the length of the spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Normally in physics problems the spring is considered to be an ideal spring, with negligible mass and negligible internal energy dissipation. So although the various parts of the spring do move as it is compressed and expanded, if you to work out the $W=Fd$ work associated with all of those various individual parts of the spring, you would realize that the force $F$ associated with moving each of those parts is zero, so no work is done on those parts. You only have to concern yourself with the work done on whatever the ideal spring is pushing.
If you were to ever encounter a physics problem in which a compressed spring is, for example, embedded in some very thick medium so that there is a force associated with the movement of every element of the spring itself as it is released, then one would have to do as you suggested and figure out the $W=Fd$ work associated with every element of the spring and add them all up to get the total work.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f502820%2fwork-done-by-spring-force%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
When we are integrating $(-kx)dx$, we are calculating the work done on displacement $dx$ off the point which is in the natural length position, (i.e. the point we begin applying force in) with force $kx$ ($x$ varies from $0$ to $x$ for each $dx$). This means we are calculating the total work by the spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the work done by them?
The formula $int(-kx)dx$ has within it the spring constant $k$, which has units of N/m. This is, of course, a linear approximation for small displacements. The infinitesimal displacement $dx$, multiplied by the spring constant, will result in an infinitesimal amount of Work, and integration/summing of all those infinitesimals will yield a total amount of work being done over the total displacement from $0$ to $x$.
In your question, it appears you have assumed that because only the position of the end of the spring is being considered in the integration, that the rest of the spring is being ignored/not considered by the integration?
But, in fact, the spring constant $k$ includes/implicitly incorporates the force contributed by every increment of the entire spring. Every increment of the spring must be stretched with every displacement of the spring's end.
Obviously, the spring constant $k$ will not be as large if the spring consisted of only an infinitesimally small increment of spring at the end of the spring. In other words, the spring constant has the value $k$ because of the total contribution of all the increments of force that must be overcome with each $dx$ of displacement of the end of the spring.
In other words, the concept/actuality of the spring constant $k$ includes the force applied against displacement of all the increments of the spring.
Thus, when integrating the force multiplied times each increment of displacement, the integration naturally/unavoidably includes the total force applied to displace all the spring's constituent inter-atomic bonds. Thus, the Work calculated for each increment of spring-end displacement implicitly includes the force needed to displace all of the interatomic bonds in the entire spring. And subsequently, integration of all those increments of Work yields the total work done by displacing the spring against the force exerted by all the bonds within the spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
When we are integrating $(-kx)dx$, we are calculating the work done on displacement $dx$ off the point which is in the natural length position, (i.e. the point we begin applying force in) with force $kx$ ($x$ varies from $0$ to $x$ for each $dx$). This means we are calculating the total work by the spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the work done by them?
The formula $int(-kx)dx$ has within it the spring constant $k$, which has units of N/m. This is, of course, a linear approximation for small displacements. The infinitesimal displacement $dx$, multiplied by the spring constant, will result in an infinitesimal amount of Work, and integration/summing of all those infinitesimals will yield a total amount of work being done over the total displacement from $0$ to $x$.
In your question, it appears you have assumed that because only the position of the end of the spring is being considered in the integration, that the rest of the spring is being ignored/not considered by the integration?
But, in fact, the spring constant $k$ includes/implicitly incorporates the force contributed by every increment of the entire spring. Every increment of the spring must be stretched with every displacement of the spring's end.
Obviously, the spring constant $k$ will not be as large if the spring consisted of only an infinitesimally small increment of spring at the end of the spring. In other words, the spring constant has the value $k$ because of the total contribution of all the increments of force that must be overcome with each $dx$ of displacement of the end of the spring.
In other words, the concept/actuality of the spring constant $k$ includes the force applied against displacement of all the increments of the spring.
Thus, when integrating the force multiplied times each increment of displacement, the integration naturally/unavoidably includes the total force applied to displace all the spring's constituent inter-atomic bonds. Thus, the Work calculated for each increment of spring-end displacement implicitly includes the force needed to displace all of the interatomic bonds in the entire spring. And subsequently, integration of all those increments of Work yields the total work done by displacing the spring against the force exerted by all the bonds within the spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
When we are integrating $(-kx)dx$, we are calculating the work done on displacement $dx$ off the point which is in the natural length position, (i.e. the point we begin applying force in) with force $kx$ ($x$ varies from $0$ to $x$ for each $dx$). This means we are calculating the total work by the spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the work done by them?
The formula $int(-kx)dx$ has within it the spring constant $k$, which has units of N/m. This is, of course, a linear approximation for small displacements. The infinitesimal displacement $dx$, multiplied by the spring constant, will result in an infinitesimal amount of Work, and integration/summing of all those infinitesimals will yield a total amount of work being done over the total displacement from $0$ to $x$.
In your question, it appears you have assumed that because only the position of the end of the spring is being considered in the integration, that the rest of the spring is being ignored/not considered by the integration?
But, in fact, the spring constant $k$ includes/implicitly incorporates the force contributed by every increment of the entire spring. Every increment of the spring must be stretched with every displacement of the spring's end.
Obviously, the spring constant $k$ will not be as large if the spring consisted of only an infinitesimally small increment of spring at the end of the spring. In other words, the spring constant has the value $k$ because of the total contribution of all the increments of force that must be overcome with each $dx$ of displacement of the end of the spring.
In other words, the concept/actuality of the spring constant $k$ includes the force applied against displacement of all the increments of the spring.
Thus, when integrating the force multiplied times each increment of displacement, the integration naturally/unavoidably includes the total force applied to displace all the spring's constituent inter-atomic bonds. Thus, the Work calculated for each increment of spring-end displacement implicitly includes the force needed to displace all of the interatomic bonds in the entire spring. And subsequently, integration of all those increments of Work yields the total work done by displacing the spring against the force exerted by all the bonds within the spring.
$endgroup$
When we are integrating $(-kx)dx$, we are calculating the work done on displacement $dx$ off the point which is in the natural length position, (i.e. the point we begin applying force in) with force $kx$ ($x$ varies from $0$ to $x$ for each $dx$). This means we are calculating the total work by the spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the work done by them?
The formula $int(-kx)dx$ has within it the spring constant $k$, which has units of N/m. This is, of course, a linear approximation for small displacements. The infinitesimal displacement $dx$, multiplied by the spring constant, will result in an infinitesimal amount of Work, and integration/summing of all those infinitesimals will yield a total amount of work being done over the total displacement from $0$ to $x$.
In your question, it appears you have assumed that because only the position of the end of the spring is being considered in the integration, that the rest of the spring is being ignored/not considered by the integration?
But, in fact, the spring constant $k$ includes/implicitly incorporates the force contributed by every increment of the entire spring. Every increment of the spring must be stretched with every displacement of the spring's end.
Obviously, the spring constant $k$ will not be as large if the spring consisted of only an infinitesimally small increment of spring at the end of the spring. In other words, the spring constant has the value $k$ because of the total contribution of all the increments of force that must be overcome with each $dx$ of displacement of the end of the spring.
In other words, the concept/actuality of the spring constant $k$ includes the force applied against displacement of all the increments of the spring.
Thus, when integrating the force multiplied times each increment of displacement, the integration naturally/unavoidably includes the total force applied to displace all the spring's constituent inter-atomic bonds. Thus, the Work calculated for each increment of spring-end displacement implicitly includes the force needed to displace all of the interatomic bonds in the entire spring. And subsequently, integration of all those increments of Work yields the total work done by displacing the spring against the force exerted by all the bonds within the spring.
answered 6 hours ago
Thomas Lee Abshier NDThomas Lee Abshier ND
6911 gold badge6 silver badges14 bronze badges
6911 gold badge6 silver badges14 bronze badges
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
So what you are saying is that the kx force itself is such ,that it includes the net force due to the displacement of each point on the spring. Thus when we integrate the force multiplied by increment dx, we are actually finding the workdone by all the points together contributing to total displacement of dx and the corresponding force is the net force they are applying. So when we start integrating from the displacement of 0 to x, we are simultaneously adding the small (total) works by all the points, as the force and dx we are considering are itself directly due to all the points?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Yes, that is exactly what is happening. Very good summary!
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Suppose that there is a spring fixed at one end and a force $F$ is applied to the spring.
The important thing is that force $F$ can be thought of as the "tension" in the spring and is the same throughout the spring.
Now consider the whole spring as three equal lengths.
Each length is subjected to a force $F$ at each end as shown in the diagram.
The work done on spring 1 by the forces stretching it by a small amount $delta x$ is $F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 2 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,2delta x - F,delta x = F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 3 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,3delta x - F,2delta x = F,delta x$.
So the total work done in stretching the three springs is $F,delta x +F,delta x+F,delta x = F,3delta x = FDelta x$ where $Delta x (=3delta x)$ is the total extension of the whole spring.
The whole spring can be cut up into as many segments as you like and then the work done extending the spring can be written as $displaystyle int_0^x_rm final F,dx$ where $x_rm final$ is the final extension of the whole spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Suppose that there is a spring fixed at one end and a force $F$ is applied to the spring.
The important thing is that force $F$ can be thought of as the "tension" in the spring and is the same throughout the spring.
Now consider the whole spring as three equal lengths.
Each length is subjected to a force $F$ at each end as shown in the diagram.
The work done on spring 1 by the forces stretching it by a small amount $delta x$ is $F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 2 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,2delta x - F,delta x = F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 3 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,3delta x - F,2delta x = F,delta x$.
So the total work done in stretching the three springs is $F,delta x +F,delta x+F,delta x = F,3delta x = FDelta x$ where $Delta x (=3delta x)$ is the total extension of the whole spring.
The whole spring can be cut up into as many segments as you like and then the work done extending the spring can be written as $displaystyle int_0^x_rm final F,dx$ where $x_rm final$ is the final extension of the whole spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Suppose that there is a spring fixed at one end and a force $F$ is applied to the spring.
The important thing is that force $F$ can be thought of as the "tension" in the spring and is the same throughout the spring.
Now consider the whole spring as three equal lengths.
Each length is subjected to a force $F$ at each end as shown in the diagram.
The work done on spring 1 by the forces stretching it by a small amount $delta x$ is $F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 2 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,2delta x - F,delta x = F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 3 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,3delta x - F,2delta x = F,delta x$.
So the total work done in stretching the three springs is $F,delta x +F,delta x+F,delta x = F,3delta x = FDelta x$ where $Delta x (=3delta x)$ is the total extension of the whole spring.
The whole spring can be cut up into as many segments as you like and then the work done extending the spring can be written as $displaystyle int_0^x_rm final F,dx$ where $x_rm final$ is the final extension of the whole spring.
$endgroup$
Suppose that there is a spring fixed at one end and a force $F$ is applied to the spring.
The important thing is that force $F$ can be thought of as the "tension" in the spring and is the same throughout the spring.
Now consider the whole spring as three equal lengths.
Each length is subjected to a force $F$ at each end as shown in the diagram.
The work done on spring 1 by the forces stretching it by a small amount $delta x$ is $F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 2 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,2delta x - F,delta x = F,delta x$.
The work done on spring 3 by the forces stretching it by $delta x$ is $F,3delta x - F,2delta x = F,delta x$.
So the total work done in stretching the three springs is $F,delta x +F,delta x+F,delta x = F,3delta x = FDelta x$ where $Delta x (=3delta x)$ is the total extension of the whole spring.
The whole spring can be cut up into as many segments as you like and then the work done extending the spring can be written as $displaystyle int_0^x_rm final F,dx$ where $x_rm final$ is the final extension of the whole spring.
answered 5 hours ago
FarcherFarcher
56.4k3 gold badges45 silver badges123 bronze badges
56.4k3 gold badges45 silver badges123 bronze badges
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's a good way to explain it without describing the spring constant. Upvote from me.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
In essence we are doing just that. When we take the integral of $(kx)dx$ between zero (the relaxed position of the end of the spring) to $x$, the stretched position, we are macroscopically summing up the work done on the microscopic level to pull the molecules apart at each point along the length of the spring in opposition to the electrostatic forces between them.
Envision the spring being comprised of molecules connected together by microscopic springs between them. The spring constant, $k$, is the macroscopic parameter equivalent to the microscopic spring constant. The integral of $(kx)dx$ sums up all the work being done on the microscopic level in stretching the microscopic springs.
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx
What I mean is the sum of all work at the molecular level equals the total work at the macroscopic level, and the sum of all the intermolecular displacements, $dx_i$, add up to the final displacement, $x$ as @Farcher showed pictorially. Or
$$sum_i=0^nk_idx_i=frackx^22$$
Where $sum dx_i$ = $x$.
Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
In essence we are doing just that. When we take the integral of $(kx)dx$ between zero (the relaxed position of the end of the spring) to $x$, the stretched position, we are macroscopically summing up the work done on the microscopic level to pull the molecules apart at each point along the length of the spring in opposition to the electrostatic forces between them.
Envision the spring being comprised of molecules connected together by microscopic springs between them. The spring constant, $k$, is the macroscopic parameter equivalent to the microscopic spring constant. The integral of $(kx)dx$ sums up all the work being done on the microscopic level in stretching the microscopic springs.
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx
What I mean is the sum of all work at the molecular level equals the total work at the macroscopic level, and the sum of all the intermolecular displacements, $dx_i$, add up to the final displacement, $x$ as @Farcher showed pictorially. Or
$$sum_i=0^nk_idx_i=frackx^22$$
Where $sum dx_i$ = $x$.
Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
In essence we are doing just that. When we take the integral of $(kx)dx$ between zero (the relaxed position of the end of the spring) to $x$, the stretched position, we are macroscopically summing up the work done on the microscopic level to pull the molecules apart at each point along the length of the spring in opposition to the electrostatic forces between them.
Envision the spring being comprised of molecules connected together by microscopic springs between them. The spring constant, $k$, is the macroscopic parameter equivalent to the microscopic spring constant. The integral of $(kx)dx$ sums up all the work being done on the microscopic level in stretching the microscopic springs.
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx
What I mean is the sum of all work at the molecular level equals the total work at the macroscopic level, and the sum of all the intermolecular displacements, $dx_i$, add up to the final displacement, $x$ as @Farcher showed pictorially. Or
$$sum_i=0^nk_idx_i=frackx^22$$
Where $sum dx_i$ = $x$.
Hope this helps.
$endgroup$
Why don't we sum (integrate) the work done by all the points?
In essence we are doing just that. When we take the integral of $(kx)dx$ between zero (the relaxed position of the end of the spring) to $x$, the stretched position, we are macroscopically summing up the work done on the microscopic level to pull the molecules apart at each point along the length of the spring in opposition to the electrostatic forces between them.
Envision the spring being comprised of molecules connected together by microscopic springs between them. The spring constant, $k$, is the macroscopic parameter equivalent to the microscopic spring constant. The integral of $(kx)dx$ sums up all the work being done on the microscopic level in stretching the microscopic springs.
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx
What I mean is the sum of all work at the molecular level equals the total work at the macroscopic level, and the sum of all the intermolecular displacements, $dx_i$, add up to the final displacement, $x$ as @Farcher showed pictorially. Or
$$sum_i=0^nk_idx_i=frackx^22$$
Where $sum dx_i$ = $x$.
Hope this helps.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
Bob DBob D
13.5k3 gold badges12 silver badges40 bronze badges
13.5k3 gold badges12 silver badges40 bronze badges
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
But then are summing work done on each point only for distance dx.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger Although I see you already accepted another answer, I updated my answer to respond to your comment. Hope it helps.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You all are equally responsible for my crystal clear understanding now. Thomas Lee Abshier ND made me understand theoretically. Farcher made it pictorial and You my good sir with the basic idea. I accepted Thomas's because he explained the little point I was missing clearly.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger And that's exactly what you should do. As they say on this site, acceptance of an answer does not necessarily mean it is the best answer nor that the other answers are necessarily wrong. It means it is the answer that worked best for the person.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The restoring force doesn't depend on the relaxed length of the spring or number of particles in it. It just depends on how far it is stretched or compressed with respect to the mean position and the spring constant.
When finding the work done (potential energy stored) we just need the force which we must apply to stop the spring from relaxing, at a certain distance and hence we just need the force at that point and the small displacement $dx$ over which it acts. Finally we integrate it all to get the total work done.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The restoring force doesn't depend on the relaxed length of the spring or number of particles in it. It just depends on how far it is stretched or compressed with respect to the mean position and the spring constant.
When finding the work done (potential energy stored) we just need the force which we must apply to stop the spring from relaxing, at a certain distance and hence we just need the force at that point and the small displacement $dx$ over which it acts. Finally we integrate it all to get the total work done.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The restoring force doesn't depend on the relaxed length of the spring or number of particles in it. It just depends on how far it is stretched or compressed with respect to the mean position and the spring constant.
When finding the work done (potential energy stored) we just need the force which we must apply to stop the spring from relaxing, at a certain distance and hence we just need the force at that point and the small displacement $dx$ over which it acts. Finally we integrate it all to get the total work done.
$endgroup$
The restoring force doesn't depend on the relaxed length of the spring or number of particles in it. It just depends on how far it is stretched or compressed with respect to the mean position and the spring constant.
When finding the work done (potential energy stored) we just need the force which we must apply to stop the spring from relaxing, at a certain distance and hence we just need the force at that point and the small displacement $dx$ over which it acts. Finally we integrate it all to get the total work done.
answered 8 hours ago
user8718165user8718165
6711 gold badge2 silver badges18 bronze badges
6711 gold badge2 silver badges18 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The other answers are all good, but I love this question too much to pass it up:
Let's break our spring with constant $k$ into $n$ little springs with spring constant $nk$ (shown here in ASCII):
|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|$...$|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|
You can verify that the total spring constant is indeed $k$:
$$frac 1 frac 1 nk +ldots+frac 1nk = frac 1 frac n nk=k$$
since series springs are added harmonically. The surprising result is that the spring segments have a larger spring constant than the total spring.
When the total spring is stretched by $x$, each segment stretches by $x/n$.
Note that the tension in each segment is:
$$ T = (nk)(x/n) = kx $$
as it must be. Moreover, each segment has done work:
$$Delta W = (nk)big(frac x nbig)^2 = frac kx^2 n$$
so obviously:
$$W = ntimesDelta W = kx^2 $$
In the limit $nrightarrow infty$ you can see that the energy is uniformly distributed along the length of the spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The other answers are all good, but I love this question too much to pass it up:
Let's break our spring with constant $k$ into $n$ little springs with spring constant $nk$ (shown here in ASCII):
|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|$...$|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|
You can verify that the total spring constant is indeed $k$:
$$frac 1 frac 1 nk +ldots+frac 1nk = frac 1 frac n nk=k$$
since series springs are added harmonically. The surprising result is that the spring segments have a larger spring constant than the total spring.
When the total spring is stretched by $x$, each segment stretches by $x/n$.
Note that the tension in each segment is:
$$ T = (nk)(x/n) = kx $$
as it must be. Moreover, each segment has done work:
$$Delta W = (nk)big(frac x nbig)^2 = frac kx^2 n$$
so obviously:
$$W = ntimesDelta W = kx^2 $$
In the limit $nrightarrow infty$ you can see that the energy is uniformly distributed along the length of the spring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The other answers are all good, but I love this question too much to pass it up:
Let's break our spring with constant $k$ into $n$ little springs with spring constant $nk$ (shown here in ASCII):
|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|$...$|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|
You can verify that the total spring constant is indeed $k$:
$$frac 1 frac 1 nk +ldots+frac 1nk = frac 1 frac n nk=k$$
since series springs are added harmonically. The surprising result is that the spring segments have a larger spring constant than the total spring.
When the total spring is stretched by $x$, each segment stretches by $x/n$.
Note that the tension in each segment is:
$$ T = (nk)(x/n) = kx $$
as it must be. Moreover, each segment has done work:
$$Delta W = (nk)big(frac x nbig)^2 = frac kx^2 n$$
so obviously:
$$W = ntimesDelta W = kx^2 $$
In the limit $nrightarrow infty$ you can see that the energy is uniformly distributed along the length of the spring.
$endgroup$
The other answers are all good, but I love this question too much to pass it up:
Let's break our spring with constant $k$ into $n$ little springs with spring constant $nk$ (shown here in ASCII):
|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|$...$|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|~$nk$~|
You can verify that the total spring constant is indeed $k$:
$$frac 1 frac 1 nk +ldots+frac 1nk = frac 1 frac n nk=k$$
since series springs are added harmonically. The surprising result is that the spring segments have a larger spring constant than the total spring.
When the total spring is stretched by $x$, each segment stretches by $x/n$.
Note that the tension in each segment is:
$$ T = (nk)(x/n) = kx $$
as it must be. Moreover, each segment has done work:
$$Delta W = (nk)big(frac x nbig)^2 = frac kx^2 n$$
so obviously:
$$W = ntimesDelta W = kx^2 $$
In the limit $nrightarrow infty$ you can see that the energy is uniformly distributed along the length of the spring.
answered 5 hours ago
JEBJEB
7,4631 gold badge10 silver badges20 bronze badges
7,4631 gold badge10 silver badges20 bronze badges
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
But isn't the work supposed to be 1/2 of what you mentioned?
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Normally in physics problems the spring is considered to be an ideal spring, with negligible mass and negligible internal energy dissipation. So although the various parts of the spring do move as it is compressed and expanded, if you to work out the $W=Fd$ work associated with all of those various individual parts of the spring, you would realize that the force $F$ associated with moving each of those parts is zero, so no work is done on those parts. You only have to concern yourself with the work done on whatever the ideal spring is pushing.
If you were to ever encounter a physics problem in which a compressed spring is, for example, embedded in some very thick medium so that there is a force associated with the movement of every element of the spring itself as it is released, then one would have to do as you suggested and figure out the $W=Fd$ work associated with every element of the spring and add them all up to get the total work.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Normally in physics problems the spring is considered to be an ideal spring, with negligible mass and negligible internal energy dissipation. So although the various parts of the spring do move as it is compressed and expanded, if you to work out the $W=Fd$ work associated with all of those various individual parts of the spring, you would realize that the force $F$ associated with moving each of those parts is zero, so no work is done on those parts. You only have to concern yourself with the work done on whatever the ideal spring is pushing.
If you were to ever encounter a physics problem in which a compressed spring is, for example, embedded in some very thick medium so that there is a force associated with the movement of every element of the spring itself as it is released, then one would have to do as you suggested and figure out the $W=Fd$ work associated with every element of the spring and add them all up to get the total work.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Normally in physics problems the spring is considered to be an ideal spring, with negligible mass and negligible internal energy dissipation. So although the various parts of the spring do move as it is compressed and expanded, if you to work out the $W=Fd$ work associated with all of those various individual parts of the spring, you would realize that the force $F$ associated with moving each of those parts is zero, so no work is done on those parts. You only have to concern yourself with the work done on whatever the ideal spring is pushing.
If you were to ever encounter a physics problem in which a compressed spring is, for example, embedded in some very thick medium so that there is a force associated with the movement of every element of the spring itself as it is released, then one would have to do as you suggested and figure out the $W=Fd$ work associated with every element of the spring and add them all up to get the total work.
$endgroup$
Normally in physics problems the spring is considered to be an ideal spring, with negligible mass and negligible internal energy dissipation. So although the various parts of the spring do move as it is compressed and expanded, if you to work out the $W=Fd$ work associated with all of those various individual parts of the spring, you would realize that the force $F$ associated with moving each of those parts is zero, so no work is done on those parts. You only have to concern yourself with the work done on whatever the ideal spring is pushing.
If you were to ever encounter a physics problem in which a compressed spring is, for example, embedded in some very thick medium so that there is a force associated with the movement of every element of the spring itself as it is released, then one would have to do as you suggested and figure out the $W=Fd$ work associated with every element of the spring and add them all up to get the total work.
edited 1 hour ago
Sebastiano
7205 silver badges24 bronze badges
7205 silver badges24 bronze badges
answered 7 hours ago
Samuel WeirSamuel Weir
3,5617 silver badges19 bronze badges
3,5617 silver badges19 bronze badges
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
But then that too sounds unnatural. If we consider work by all the points of the spring, then that would equal infinite!
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - No, an infinite summation over infinitesimally small parts does not in general result in an infinite value as you will learn when you take calculus.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes I know that but the net work done on each point is of course not infinitesimal.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@NightKruger - You would have to work out the forces on each of the small elements of the spring and then take the limit as the elements get infinitesimally small. Again, this sort of procedure is all covered in calculus courses.
$endgroup$
– Samuel Weir
7 hours ago
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f502820%2fwork-done-by-spring-force%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Can you explain what you mean by the "outermost point"?
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
When we are integrating kxdx, we are calculating the workdone on displacement dx of the point (the point which is in the natural length position, i.e the point we begin applying force in)with force kx (x varies from 0 to x for each dx).This means we are calculating the total work by spring force of the outermost point only. But all the points in the spring are displaced. Why don't we add all the workdones by them.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Now I think I understand what you are getting at, and will submit an answer.
$endgroup$
– Bob D
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
This question may help: physics.stackexchange.com/q/226279
$endgroup$
– Thomas Lee Abshier ND
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
No offense but im asking regarding a different question.
$endgroup$
– NightKruger
7 hours ago