I could be wrong as well. If the force is proportional to the displacement, stacking n in opposition means each will have to displace 1/n times as far so the force required should be 1/n times as much.
To quote McMaster Carr, "Springs stacked inverted increase the deflection of the spring by the number of springs in the stack while retaining the load of only one across the span of the stack."
Yes, I understand, but that approximation only works if all of the washers have the same load/deflection characteristics. That probably covers 80%-90% of applications and I suppose that's why the relationship was simplified (and proliferated, LOL).
In many applications, progressively increasing/decreasing force curves are desired and this requires using washers/springs of different load/deflection characteristics. One may want a gradually increasing load curve - a shock absorber for example - so a number of washers/springs could be cascaded with progressively increasing load/deflection.
Determining the load/deflection curve wouldn't be possible using the simplifications published in McMaster Carr and other distributors of these devices. I'm sure that the OP has no intention of designing a progressive load pull stud system, I just thought that a clarification might be helpful to anyone considering a project where non-linear load conditions might be desirable.
P.S. When considering replacing the rear suspension on my '93 Sportster, I found that all of the after-market products that would improve handling used progressive springs. There would be two ways to design these springs, the simplest probably being finite element analysis (FEA).
That's a viable method now since there are low-cost FEA applications for PCs - I use "LISA", for example, and I love it. But if FEA is unavailable, the design technique would be to consider the progressive-wound spring as a number of springs of differing characteristics, stacked in series.
Combining the calculated spring characteristics of all the springs, an accurate load curve could be obtained. The simplification found in catalogs clearly is not appropriate for applications like this.
Sorry if I'm being pedantic, I don't have anything else to do, LOL