Free two-mass spring 2026-10-14
Take two point masses joined by a massless spring of spring constant and equilibrium length . Assume one-dimensional motion along the spring, no external force, no damping, and an extension satisfying Hooke's law; keep . For a real spring this is a model within its elastic range. Its potential energy is , so
Here is angular frequency and is frequency. Choose so the model bodies do not cross. The internal normal mode has displacements and about equilibrium offsets from the centre of mass; its amplitude ratio is . The other normal mode is collective translation with zero frequency and no spring extension. This free pair has different boundary conditions from normal modes of two equal masses between three springs.
For and two masses, and . Replacing the second mass by gives and . Fixing the second endpoint instead would give : the free heavy partner still moves. The free pair's angular frequency exceeds that fixed-end limit by the factor , about at .
Figure 1.
Reduced mass and free two-mass spring angular frequency as the partner becomes heavier
. Original dimensionless model with and held fixed, , and . The marks at and correspond to the computed examples; curves are predictions, not measured data. Details.
Reduced mass Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-14
The reduced mass is the effective mass for the two-particle relative coordinate of two bodies with constant positive masses :
Both bodies can respond to their mutual force, so their relative acceleration is greater than if one were fixed. Consequently . This explains why using either individual mass, or their sum, generally gives the wrong internal oscillation rate. The same reduced mass describes a two-body problem, a free two-mass spring, and the approximate molecular vibration of a diatomic molecule.[ref]
For equal masses , . Two bodies therefore have : in their stationary centre of mass frame a relative speed means individual speeds and total kinetic energy . With and , instead . At the same relative speed, the individual speeds are and , and the total kinetic energy is . These are calculations for stipulated masses and velocities.
For fixed and , . The heavy-partner limit gives from below; the relative error incurred by replacing with is . At this is . Treating the heavy body as fixed is thus a controlled approximation to internal motion, rather than an exact consequence of its being heavier.
Choose positions in one inertial frame and let . The centre of mass and two-particle relative coordinate are
The lighter body is farther from the centre of mass. Reconstructing both positions from these equations is part of solving the two-body problem; alone describes their separation, not either body's laboratory position.[ref]
Figure 1. . Original illustrative free two-mass spring model, with , equilibrium separation , relative extension , , and . The right plot subtracts both the translating centre of mass and each body's equilibrium offset. It shows internal displacements, not full distances from the centre of mass. Details.
Substitute the reconstructed velocities into the kinetic energy. The result is the exact two-particle instance of kinetic-energy decomposition about the centre of mass:
The mixed dot product has coefficient ; the coefficient of is . This algebra needs constant positive masses but no particular force law. In the stationary centre of mass frame, the fraction of internal kinetic energy carried by body 1 is , and by body 2 is : the lighter body carries more.
For a closed pair with no external forces, write for the force on body 2 and for that on body 1, as required by Newton's third law. Adding and subtracting their Newton's second law equations yields
Thus the centre of mass moves uniformly while the two-particle relative coordinate behaves like one body of reduced mass. Equal-opposite internal forces suffice for these equations. For an internal central force, with , the internal torque vanishes and conservation of angular momentum gives constant . If the central force comes from a time-independent potential energy , then and the internal mechanical energy is conserved. The kinetic energy split alone does not establish either conservation law.