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] |
At 05:41 AM 12/5/01, you wrote:is
In a message dated 12/4/2001 11:17:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
inet@INTELLISYS.NET writes:
No, the questions are unreasonable. If the extra downward displacement
coilgreater than the equilibrium displacement, then the possibility of
only thebinding is not excluded on the upward rebound.
For this same reason, the spring constant is not determined by
modeled.force required for a specified displacement.
To summarize: a) and b) are indeterminate, and c) is incorrectly
zero
Does my specification of an origin (and by implication a reference for
begravitational potential energy) remove the indeterminacy of b)?
Justin
As you have seen from other replies, if you assume a loose coiled spring,
the initial force to extend it starts at zero. Here, the spring rate may
found. The pathological case about which I also nitpicked, is the
close coiled ("coil-bound") spring, for which the force to
initally extend it is non zero. These springs are not uncommon
(except among physics teachers, it seems)
Brian
Brian Whatcott
Altus OK Eureka!