Two 1 k g beads are at the ends of a compressed spring resting on a smooth parabolic wire ( y = x 2 ) . The spring has a natural length of 1 m and a force constant of 5 N / m .
If the system is in static equilibrium, how far away from the y -axis is each bead (in meters)?
Note: The spring is horizontal and gravity is 1 0 m / s 2 in the − y direction.
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
How do you derive the final equation: Fbead = g (2x) ?
Fbead = 10(2x) doesn't seem correct. If bead has position x = 1000 then Fbead = 20000 N which shouldn't happen. Fbead can't be greater than (mg). I calculated Fbead as X part of the normal force and get Fbead = 10 * 2x / (4*x^2 + 1). But in this case my result is (0.18). I can understand why this doesn't work with the normal force?
Log in to reply
If bead has position x = 1000, then indeed Fbead (horizontally) = 20000 N. Think of the sideways force that can be generated by a wedge. With your formula, it's only approximately 1/200 N. The horizontal force should get weaker as x -> 0, not as x -> oo.
Log in to reply
Why? At x → ∞ the slope is vertical and the bead can freely fall, hence horizontal force should be 0 . And at x → 0 the slope is horizontal so the bead just lay there so horizontal force is 0 too. So horizontal force should be 0 at x = 0 then it rises and then goes down to 0 at x → ∞ . As I understand I need to project ( m g ) to the slope of parabola and X component of this force is F b e a d . In order to project ( m g ) I need to find tangent vector which is:
∥ t ∥ = ∥ ( 1 , 2 x ) ∥ = ( 4 x 2 + 1 1 , 4 x 2 + 1 2 x ) .
Then projection will be F = ∥ t ∥ ⋅ ( ∥ t ∥ ⋅ m g ) . Where g = ( 0 , − 1 0 ) and m = 1 .
F = ( 4 x 2 + 1 1 , 4 x 2 + 1 2 x ) ⋅ ( 4 x 2 + 1 1 ⋅ 0 + 4 x 2 + 1 2 x ⋅ ( − 1 0 ) ) F = ( 4 x 2 + 1 1 , 4 x 2 + 1 2 x ) ⋅ ( 4 x 2 + 1 − 1 0 ⋅ 2 x ) F = ( 4 x 2 + 1 − 1 0 ⋅ 2 x , 4 x 2 + 1 − 1 0 ⋅ 4 x 2 ) F = ( 4 x 2 + 1 − 1 0 ⋅ 2 x , 4 x 2 + 1 − 1 0 ⋅ 4 x 2 )
And F b e a d = 4 x 2 + 1 − 1 0 ⋅ 2 x . It has negative value because the slope pulls the bead towards the center.
Then equilibrium point is ( F s p r i n g + F b e a d = 0 ) or ( F s p r i n g = − F b e a d )
Log in to reply
@Oleksandr Filipenko – I figured it out. I also have to project force from the spring. In this case I have
F s p r i n g = 4 x 2 + 1 5 ( 1 − 2 x )
So here ( F s p r i n g = − F b e a d ) I have this:
4 x 2 + 1 5 ( 1 − 2 x ) = 4 x 2 + 1 1 0 ⋅ 2 x 5 ( 1 − 2 x ) = 1 0 ⋅ 2 x x = 6 1
Log in to reply
@Oleksandr Filipenko – Yes, you've got it. You've used the sum of force vectors approach to do this, which involves a constraint of motion along the wire, and hence the use of the normal force vector. The forces on this normal does not need to balance out, otherwise this wouldn't involve a constraint of motion. It's like pushing a block on a frictionless floor, pushing it at an angle instead of horizontally. The floor will push back up vertically.
I don't think the energy approach will work here, I really tried. Work is force times distance but only when the force is constant. In the case of a Hook's Law spring, F = kx, one needs to integrate with respect to x. Work = k*(x^2)/2 with the appropriate limits. Also, if there is no outside force applied the beads will accelerate, if not already at the static position, which means there is kinetic energy involved as well. However, if someone has figured out how to solve this via energy considerations, I would love to see it.
Log in to reply
What matters here is the at equilbrium, the two horizontal forces be the same. We understand the force exerted by the spring using Hooke's law, but I'm explaining why the force exerted by a bead on a slope is F = s ⋅ w , where s is the slope and w is the weight of the bead.
We could also try looking at total energy required to compress the spring, which has to be matched by change in gravitational energy of the beads. I didn't do it that way, though.
The problem with trying to equate total energy to compress the spring with the total change in gravitational potential. If we were to drop the 1 kg weights from y = 4 1 , the spring and weights will end up oscillating, not coming to a stable equilbrium at x = 6 1 Instead, differentiation of the functions for spring energy and gravitational potential energy needs to be done and then equated to find the stable equilibrium.
Why is the compression force F and not 2F? Why is the mass of the second bead not taken into account?
Log in to reply
If one of the ends of the spring was on a wall, and if we push on the other end with a force F, the wall pushes back with force -F. The force compressing the spring is still F, not 2F. As another example, if two people tug at opposite sides with a rope with equal forces F and -F, the tension in the rope is F, not 2F. As a further example, if two weights are hanging from a single rope around a pulley, both with downward force F, and if there was a spring scale just above each weight, the spring scale will show the weight of each, not combined. The tension in the rope is still the force of one weight, not two. Finally, if you are holding 50 pounds on your head, the force you feel with your feet on the ground is 50 pounds upwards. But your body feels a compression force of 50 pounds, not 100.
Here's a way to analyze this. Let's say we have a very long spring that is already compressed with a force of 1 N. To a good approximation, the work required to compress it 2 more meters is 2 N-meter, which has units of energy. Let's say we have 2 people that are pushing the ends of this spring, each with a force of 1 N. But each only pushes 1 meter towards each other, so that each does 1 N-meter work. Combined, they have done 2 N-meter work in compressing the spring 2 meters.
There are many instances like this in engineering, where we have equal but opposite forces acting on a member. The compression or tensile force is equal to one of the forces F, not 2F.
The 2 in Fspring = 5(1-2x) does double the force. Since for Hook's law F = -kx, dF/dx = -k. dFspring/dx = -2k (acts twice as stiff). Each bead feels this force, so only one side needs to be analyzed.
This problem gave me a lot to think about. I finally wrote out the dynamical equations using results on this page, added some dissipation and ran the code. It was satisfying to see the beads settle down to x = 1/6. The dissipation is necessary to stop the system from perpetual oscillations. I did find that there is a minimum dissipation coefficient needed to keep the beads from slamming into the bottom of the parabola. Without any dissipationa minimum value of k =10 is needed so the closest approach to y-axis is >= 0.
Log in to reply
wow you actually simulated this? pretty cool
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – I have a copy of Matlab which has ODE solvers. I'm sure Python (which is free) can do this just as well, as well as others.
It could be easiest to solve for energy equilibrium. You get 20x^2 for gravitational energy, and 5/2 (1-x x)^2 for the energy in the spring. Differentiating w.r.t. x and equating the sum of the derivatives to zero gives x=1/6.
Log in to reply
You mean solving for x in the following:
d x d ( 2 ⋅ 1 0 ( ( 2 1 ) 2 − x 2 ) = d x d ( 5 ⋅ 2 1 ( 1 − 2 x ) 2 )
which yields x = 6 1
Log in to reply
Yes, thank you for the clarification. You have added a constant to the potential energy, but that vanishes on taking the derivative. I need to brush up my Latex skills!
I think this is an example of conservative forces and potential fields. It's all good stuff. The gradient of a potential field is a force, so equating derivatives of a potential is equivalent to equating forces. This brings back memories of a couple of college courses.
"What could be confusing is that the term s=2x looks like distance, but, here in this problem, it's a ratio, not distance."Sir,could u pls explain which two quantities ratios are u taking???? And another doubt is that why did u take the derivative of the potential energy on both sides????
I do not understand how the Conservation of Energy imply that the work done pushing in the x direction is the same as the work done in the y direction.
Log in to reply
If Conservation of Energy didn't hold, then we could have done work to store energy in a spring, and then use it to raise beads to a level higher than what the same amount of work that would be normally be required to raise the beads. Then we could allow the beads to drop back, thus generating net energy. Free source of energy! Or vice versa, starting with the springs to store energy into the springs, and then using the springs to generate net energy.
A lot of proposals have been made in attempts to get this free net energy using complicated apparatuses, but the Conservation of Energy doens't permit any of them to succeed. Total energy is conserved as a consequence of the fact the laws of physics are constant through time. See Nother's Theorem
Log in to reply
Oh I see. On a side note, what force is keeping the bead from falling all the way down? The spring is only acting in the horizontal direction right?
Log in to reply
@Benjamin Lee – That's correct.
Log in to reply
@Michael Mendrin – So is the wire pushing the bead upwards to counteract gravity?
Is y=x^2 supposed to mean that x and y are measured in meters? If measured in mm, the formula becomes different. The units are missing. Left side has meter unit, right side has area unit.
Could you please explain the differentiation in the last line? I know that f = -du/dr, just can't feel it.
A bead rests when the sum of the spring force F and the gravitational force G is perpendicular to the wire. Sorry, I'm not drawing here - please do or imagine :)
Let α be the angle between the tangential at the resting point and axis x. The slope of the tangential t g ( α ) is the first derivative of the function f ( x ) = x 2 .
t g ( α ) = 2 x
from similar triangles:
t g ( α ) = G F , where F = k l and G = m g , ( l being the distance the spring is compressed: l = L − 2 x )
so
2 x = m g k ( L − 2 x )
2 x = 1 0 5 ( 1 − 2 x )
x = 6 1
tan(a) must be the force in the y-direction (vertical) over the force in the x-direction (horizontal). The vertical component of the force on the paraboloid must be equal to the weight and the horizontal component of the force on the paraboloid should be equal to the spring force.
The slope of the parabola at any point ( x , x 2 ) is 2 x . Let's focus on the right half of the picture.
The force of gravity at any point is 1 0 N straight down. We can break this into components. One is perpendicular to the wire the other parallel to (along down) the wire. We only need the latter, which is 1 0 sin ( tan − 1 ( 2 x ) ) (This can simplify but I plan to solve by graphing, so I'll leave it like this.)
I didn't know a spring's force was proportional to the distance from rest, but anyway, this means the force from the compressed spring is 1 0 ( . 5 − x ) N straight to the right. We can break this into components. One is perpendicular to the wire the other parallel to (along up) the wire. We only need the latter, which is 1 0 ( . 5 − x ) cos ( tan − 1 ( 2 x ) )
To be in equilibrium, graph these and find the point of intersection: ( . 1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 , 3 . 1 6 2 2 7 7 7 )
So the solution is x = 0 . 1 6 6 6 6 6 7
Great solution. Small typo at the end: x=0.1666667
The spring is compressed.
tana = 2x
F = N.sina
P = N.cosa
=> F/P = tana <=> k.(l-2x) = mg.2x
<=> 5(1-2x) = 1.10.2x
Solve the EQN => x = 0.1666667
In my opinion it's easier to think of such problems in terms of energy rather than force.
Here there are two potential energy one from gravity ( m g h ) and one from the spring ( 2 1 k s 2 ). Let y b be the height of the beads and x b be the x -coordinate of the right most bead. Then m g h = 2 0 y b and 2 1 k s 2 = 2 1 5 ( 1 − 2 x b ) 2 . So the total energy is E = 2 0 y b + 2 1 5 ( 1 − 2 x b ) 2 . Using that y b = x b 2 one gets E = 2 0 x b 2 + 2 1 5 ( 1 − 2 x b ) 2 .
The system is stable when the derivative of energy is 0: 0 = 4 0 x b − 1 0 ( 1 − 2 x b ) . Solving for x b yields 6 1 .
That's a nice approach. Have you dabbled much in Lagrangian mechanics?
Log in to reply
Not more than required by my "B.Sc."... It's just a general principle that when you can approach a problem with energy, then you should try to.
There are really cool problem you can actually solve with energy even if there are no apparent springs. You can also introduce force through work. For example, what is the tensile force in a spinning string? Well you can express the rotational energy as a function of length. Do a small "virtual" variation of the length and you will increase the energy. Now this increase in length is also a "virtual" work done by the tensile force. You can then equate the "virtual" work with the "virtual" energy increase and solve for force.
This is much simpler than any alternative approach I know of. I guess these techniques are some older version of Langrangian mechanics (there were probably used by the Bernoulli).
This is exactly how I wanted to do it, but due to idiocy I solved for zero energy instead of zero derivative at the end. Ah well!
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The slope of the function y = x 2 is 2 x , so that at x = 2 1 , the slope is 1 , and the distance between the beads is 1 m initially.
Each 1 kg bead has a downward force of 1 0 N, so initially the force compressing the spring is also 1 0 N where the slope is 1 .
(If the two beads are pushing towards each other with vector forces of F , − F , then the compression force is F , not 2 F )
If x is the distance from the y axis to one end of the spring, then 2 x is the total length of the compressed spring, and the force required to hold it at that length instead of 1 meter is, using Hooke's Law where the spring constant is 5 N/m
F s p r i n g = 5 ( 1 − 2 x ) N
The horizontal force exerted towards the y axis by a 1 kg bead on the parabola is (see Note below about this)
F b e a d = 1 0 ( 2 x ) N
Solving F s p r i n g = F b e a d gets us x = 6 1 = 0 . 1 6 6 6 . . . .
.
Note: Given a tangent line of slope s = x y , if a bead travels down along that tangent, then the work (energy) it does pushing in the x direction is the same as the work (energy) gravity does on the bead in the y direction, using the Conservation of Energy law. Work (energy) equals Force times Distance, so that we have F x x = F y y , or F x = F y x y = F y s . Here, in this problem, F y = 1 0 N, and s = 2 x . What could be confusing is that the term s = 2 x looks like distance, but, here in this problem, it's a ratio, not distance.
.
Addendum: An alternative way (per Bart Meijer) of solving this would be to look at this using work done on the spring and change in gravitational energy of the beads, which are, respectively
W = 2 1 k x 2 = 2 1 ⋅ 5 ⋅ ( 1 − 2 x ) 2 )
P E = m g h = 2 ⋅ 1 0 ⋅ ( ( 2 1 ) 2 − x 2 )
For equilibrum, the equation to solve would be
d x d ( 2 1 ⋅ 5 ⋅ ( 1 − 2 x ) 2 ) = d x d ( 2 ⋅ 1 0 ⋅ ( ( 2 1 ) 2 − x 2 )
which yields the same result, x = 6 1