Massive springs
By Andrew Pontzen (P4476) on Wednesday,
May 16, 2001 - 10:46 pm :
A uniform "slinky" spring of mass M, unstretched length L and
force constant k rests in a smooth, horizontal tube. A horizontal
force is applied at one end, along the spring's axis, so as to
_pull_ the spring along the tube.
The force is gradually increased until the spring moves with the
same horizontal acceleration a along its whole length. What is
then the length of the spring?
Worryingly, I can't get a sensible solution. I must be doing
something stupid. Here is what I've done:
Consider a section mass
, length
when unstretched and
length
when stretched. The difference in force acting on the front and back of this section is
.
and
When the spring is unstretched, the mass is evenly distributed
Let
Then we have
Integrate both sides wrt
from 0 to
, to get
, which can't be right.
This is my first post on this board, so please forgive me if I'm
covering old ground - also I know this is meant to be maths
rather than physics, but I think this question could just have
easily appeared in the mechanics section of a maths STEP.
Thanks in advance for any help.
By Michael Doré (Md285) on Thursday, May 17,
2001 - 01:16 am :
Hi Andrew, welcome to NRICH :)
I think the error is in the statement:
I'm not really sure where this has come from, but if it were true then the
force on the slinky would be massive. For instance suppose the slinky was
locally extended to twice its natural length then
would be of the
order
. And so the total force on the slinky would be of order
which tends to infinity in the limit.
Anyway, here is one approach. Suppose the slinky has ends A and B and is being
dragged in the direction from A to B at a constant acceleration. We're given
that all points on the spring have the same acceleration. For convenience,
we'll call
the point so that the natural length of the spring between A
and
is
. Let the tension at
be
and let the distance
between A and
be
(so that
= the total length of slinky).
Now consider a small strip of slinky between
and
. The
mass of this is
so by
, the total force on this strip
is:
But we also know that the total force on this strip is
so we obtain:
Upon taking
:
So
constant, but the tension at A is clearly 0, so
.
Now once again, divide up the spring into small strips of length
.
What is the actual distance between
and
? Well the
natural length of this strip is
, and its extension is given by
because the spring constant of this strip is
.
Notice that I've assumed that the tension in this region is around about
.
In fact the tension does vary slightly between
and
,
but the error is of order
. This is clearly not significant in
the limit. (The error term in the extension of the strip is second order.)
So:
And:
Therefore:
const
but the constant is clearly 0, so the final length is:
By Kerwin Hui (Kwkh2) on Thursday,
May 17, 2001 - 12:55 pm :
I believe the equation
is perfectly OK. It just comes from
. The main problem was that
you assumed mass was uniform to work out an expression for dy/dm.
Kerwin
By Andrew Pontzen (P4476) on Thursday,
May 17, 2001 - 07:48 pm :
Thanks for all the help.
I believe that
is perfectly valid
and, at risk of showing myself to be even more stupid, I still can't see how
it is incorrect to assume that dx/dm is constant. Clearly the mass
distribution won't be constant when the spring is stretched, but I don't see
why it shouldn't be when it is at its natural length.
Thanks for your help
By Michael Doré (Md285) on Thursday, May 17,
2001 - 11:22 pm :
Hi,
I still don't believe the
equation.
I think you're using tension
extension of strip/natural length of
strip. So shouldn't the
be an
? Why would it be the difference
in tension?
Regards,
Michael
By Andrew Pontzen (P4476) on Friday,
May 18, 2001 - 07:01 pm :
Ah... yes that makes sense. And I should have spotted straight away that it
was wrong because if you let
then you get
which is evidently wrong.
I think this clears it all up. I will try solving the problem
with my approach without that erratic line.
Thanks everyone!