questions more Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 1. Why both L of left hand and right hand figures are different? 2. Why mg is put on the right end, not middle of the bar, in the right hand figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 1) is sloppy notation, probably, from wanting the formulas to look alike. 2) It may be that this is not supposed to be a free-body diagram. But I would expect the spring constant to show up in the answer, so I don't really trust anything about the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 It's a very poorly stated problem but I suspect that the spring constant might cancel out of the second system. L is related to the spring constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 It's a very poorly stated problem but I suspect that the spring constant might cancel out of the second system. L is related to the spring constant. It shouldn't be; the bar is horizontal when unperturbed. L (as labeled) is from an external push, so it's arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 If it's displaced down by L as a result of mg then it's a different kettle of fish. However, it is ridiculously ill stated, so it's difficult to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enthalpy Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 This is a known relation in accelerometers. In the second figure, the deflection L does result from the weight, and then the resonant frequency can be written this way as a function of the deflection instead of the spring stiffness. At accelerometers, it's used as a sensitivity figure (in terms of displacement) related to the resonance frequency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 This is a known relation in accelerometers. In the second figure, the deflection L does result from the weight, and then the resonant frequency can be written this way as a function of the deflection instead of the spring stiffness. At accelerometers, it's used as a sensitivity figure (in terms of displacement) related to the resonance frequency. The problem explicitly states that it is horizontal at equilibrium. The deflection of L is therefore not the result of mg; the deflection from mg is unknown. The formulation/presentation of the problem is quite poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Maybe they considered it to be at eqm before they put a weight on it and pushed it down by L. It's not possible to be certain but at least that interpretation would mean that the formula might be right. In any event, it's spectacularly ill described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Maybe they considered it to be at eqm before they put a weight on it and pushed it down by L. It's not possible to be certain but at least that interpretation would mean that the formula might be right. In any event, it's spectacularly ill described. That's a possibility. Likely, even, since it explains why the mg is at the end of the rod — that's where the invisible mass is placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now