Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Why did I expect this? Say a force F on a 10cm spring gives angular
deflection phi. Now, for the same force on a 20cm spring, consider the
outer 10cm of it. That outer half is static, so the total force on it is
zero. This implies that the force of the inner half on the outer half is
-F, and (for small phi) is almost entirely a *shear* force. By N3, the
inner half of the long spring is exactly the same as the entire shorter
spring, so it has deflection phi. Of course, the outer half also bends.
So for constant force, a double length spring will have double the angular
deflection. This argument only really makes any sense for small phi, which
is why I was so surprised that my experiment worked so well.
(An aside: it took me quite some thinking to realize the existence of this
shear force. Perhaps this is one for the misconception list? A leaf
spring does *not* support/push things by compression/tension along the
spring. That's incompatible with N3.)
Besides the fact that I found the angular deflection 'phi' easier to think
about in the above argument, there's actually another reason to consider it
instead of the distance deflection 'x'. My guess as to the important local
property of a bent leaf spring is the curvature, which is given by the
derivative (d phi)/(d d). (I've been trapped by my notation, but I hope
that's clear.)
--
--James McLean
jmclean@chem.ucsd.edu
post doc
UC San Diego, Chemistry