|
|
|
Main Menu
|
|
Sections
Meta
Talkback
Downloads
Information
|
|
|
|
|
![[parent]](https://images.physicslibrary.org/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Correction to 'Hooke's law'
|
some comments by mathforever
Correction id: 3
Filed on: 2005-04-07 09:42:00
Status: Accepted on 2006-05-23 15:21:56
Type: Addendum
Correction text:
Let me make some comments on the text:
1) "This law is actually almost never used to describe stereotypical metal springs"
It is quite suprising for me, since I know that for metal springs this law is used in the first place. Are you sure that the above sentence is correct?
Of cource what you wrote further
"Instead it is used to describe or approximate a number of other “spring-like†interactions in nature, including interactions between microscopic or subatomic particles"
says that such dependence of the force on displacements is not only in springs and it is correct. Thus I would rewrite
---
This law is actually almost never used to describe stereotypical metal springs. Instead it is used to describe or approximate a number of other “spring-like†interactions in nature, including interactions between microscopic or subatomic particles.
---
to
---
This law is used not only for metal springs, but also in many other “spring-like†interactions in nature, including interactions between microscopic or subatomic particles.
---
2) "The simple linear nature of the law makes it very convenient to work with mathematically"
I think it needs to be made clear that it is NOT really law in the sence that it is TRUE like 2+2=4 (in decimal sistem :). It is just an approximation which could work in a lot of situations. But the above sentence somehow indirectly suggest an opposite, at least I got such impression. Thus I would delete that sentence.
Of cource the linear character of the law should be emphasized. What one could probably add is discussion that the force F has some dependence on the displacement d. Although this dependence is not linear in general, for some interval of displacements the linear law is a VERY GOOD approximation. |
Comment from object owner akrowne:
| let me know if it looks better now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
