Atwood's Machine with unknown masses

  • Thread starter Warmacblu
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Machine
In summary, the conversation discusses solving an Atwood's machine problem using equations for acceleration and kinetic energy. After a series of equations and attempts at solving, it is determined that the value of the heavier mass is 1.48372 and the value of the lighter mass is 0.12828. The conversation also includes a discussion on combining equations to eliminate variables.
  • #1
Warmacblu
103
0

Homework Statement



A simple Atwood's machine uses two masses m1 and m2. Starting from rest, the speed of the two masses is 8.7 m/s at the end of 7.4 s. At that time, the kinetic energy of the system is 61 J and each mass has moved a distance of 32.19 m.

Find the value of the heavier mass.

Find the value of the lighter mass.

Homework Equations



a = (m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2)g
Ke = 1/2mv2

The Attempt at a Solution



61 = 1/2m1v2 + 1/2m2v2
61 = 1/2(8.7)2(m1+m2)
61 = 37.845(m1+m2)
m1+m2 = 1.612

a = 8.7 / 7.4 = 1.176

1.176 = (m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2)g
10.976m1 = 8.624m2
m1 = .786m2

.786m2 + m2 = 1.612
2m2 = 2.051
m2 = 1.025

m1 + 1.025 = 1.612
m1 = .587

I was sure that I solved it correctly, perhaps my algebra for solving the acceleration equation is incorrect.

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
.786m2 + m2 = 1.612
2m2 = 2.051
-------> Shouldn't this be 1.786m2=1.612?
 
  • #3
method_man said:
-------> Shouldn't this be 1.786m2=1.612?

So you are saying my algebra for solving the acceleration equation is wrong? I got .786, not 1.786.
 
  • #4
Warmacblu said:
So you are saying my algebra for solving the acceleration equation is wrong? I got .786, not 1.786.
It seems to me so.
0.786m2 + m2 = 1.612
(0.786+1)m2=1.612
1.786m2=1.612
Could you write down exact solution?
 
  • #5
I got .786 from this:

1.176 = (m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2)g
10.976m1 = 8.624m2
m1 = .786m2
 
  • #6
the problem is: how do you get from

[tex].786m_2 + m_2= 1.612 [/tex]

to

[tex] 2m_2 = 2.051 [/tex]
 
  • #7
[tex] 1.176 = \frac {m_2 - m_1} {m_1 + m_2} g [/tex]

[tex] 10.976m_1 = 8.624m_2 [/tex]

this step is also wrong
 
Last edited:
  • #8
willem2 said:
the problem is: how do you get from

[tex].786m_2 + m_2= 1.612 [/tex]

to

[tex] 2m_2 = 2.051 [/tex]

I divided 1.612 by .786 then I thought I could combine like terms.

willem2 said:
[tex] 1.176 = \frac {m_2 - m_1} {m_1 + m_2} g [/tex]

[tex] 10.976m_1 = 8.624m_2 [/tex]

this step is also wrong

I was kinda finicky on this step. Could you give me a hint on how to solve it algebraically?
 
  • #9
Warmacblu said:
I divided 1.612 by .786 then I thought I could combine like terms.

you have to divide ALL terms by .786. THat would give you [itex] m_2 + m_2/0.786 = 1.612/0.786 [/itex] I don't think that helps.

I was kinda finicky on this step. Could you give me a hint on how to solve it algebraically?

[/QUOTE]

multiply both sides by [itex] \frac {m_1 + m_2} {g} [/itex] (you already know what m_1+m_2 is)

combine what you get with [itex] m_1 + m_2 = 1.612 [/itex]
 
  • #10
willem2 said:
you have to divide ALL terms by .786. THat would give you [itex] m_2 + m_2/0.786 = 1.612/0.786 [/itex] I don't think that helps.

multiply both sides by [itex] \frac {m_1 + m_2} {g} [/itex] (you already know what m_1+m_2 is)

combine what you get with [itex] m_1 + m_2 = 1.612 [/itex][/QUOTE]

Okay, so I did this:

1.176 = (m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2) g
1.176 (m1 + m2) g = m2 - m1
1.176 (15.7976) = m2 - m1
18.578 = m2 - m1

I don't know if this is correct because I multiplied m1 + m2 and g. I wasn't sure if I should divide by g or multiply since it is in the denominator.
 
  • #11
Warmacblu said:
multiply both sides by [itex] \frac {m_1 + m_2} {g} [/itex] (you already know what m_1+m_2 is)

combine what you get with [itex] m_1 + m_2 = 1.612 [/itex]

Okay, so I did this:

1.176 = (m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2) g
[/QUOTE]

note that it's [tex] a = \frac {m_2 - m_1} {m_1 + m_2} g [/tex]

not

[tex] a = \frac {m_2 - m_1} {(m_1 + m_2) g} [/tex]

so you have to multiply both sides by m_1 + m_2 and then divide by g
 
  • #12
willem2 said:
Okay, so I did this:

1.176 = (m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2) g

note that it's [tex] a = \frac {m_2 - m_1} {m_1 + m_2} g [/tex]

not

[tex] a = \frac {m_2 - m_1} {(m_1 + m_2) g} [/tex]

so you have to multiply both sides by m_1 + m_2 and then divide by g

Okay, here's what I came up with.

1.176 = ((m2 - m1) / (m1 + m2))g

(1.176 * 1.162) / g = .19344 = m2 - m1

How does that look? I do not know what you mean when you say add it to m1 + m2 = 1.612.

Thanks for the help.
 
  • #13
adding 2 equations:

if you have A = B and C=D then A+C = B+D

now you have .19344 = m2 - m1

and m1 + m2 = 1.162
 
  • #14
willem2 said:
adding 2 equations:

if you have A = B and C=D then A+C = B+D

now you have .19344 = m2 - m1

and m1 + m2 = 1.162

A = .19344
B = m2 - m1
C = 1.162
D = m1 + m2

.19344 + 1.162 = (m2 - m1) + (m1 + m2)

How does that set-up look?
 
  • #15
Looks OK. you can now add up the right and the left side of this equation.
 
  • #16
willem2 said:
Looks OK. you can now add up the right and the left side of this equation.

.19344 + 1.162 = (m2 - m1) + (m1 + m2)

1.35544 = m2 + m1

m1 = m2 - 1.35544


Using the equation from Ke and Pe:

m1 + m2 = 1.612

m2 - 1.35544 + m2 = 1.612

m2 + m2 = 2.96744

2m2 = 2.96744

m2 = 1.48372

So m1:

m1 + 1.48372 = 1.612

m1 = .12828

Is my math okay?
 
  • #17
Warmacblu said:
.19344 + 1.162 = (m2 - m1) + (m1 + m2)

1.35544 = m2 + m1

m1 = m2 - 1.35544

the only reason for adding the 2 equations was that m1 would disappear.

m1 - m2 + m1 + m2 = ?



if you have 2 equations like 2x - y = 7 and 3x + y = 4 it's often easy to eliminate one
of the variables by adding or subtracting them.
if you add them you get 2x - y + 3x + y = 7 + 4 so you get 5x = 11 and x = 11/5

then you substitute x = 11/5 in 2x - y = 7 to get y: 2 (11/5) - y = 7 => y = 22/5 -7 = 22/5 - 35/5 = - 13/5 = -2.6

adding the equations works because y appears in one of them and -y in the other, so you
know y will disappear.
 
  • #18
I understand now, thanks. I also went to my professor to discuss this question and he explained an easier way to do it, but similar.

Thanks for all the help.
 

FAQ: Atwood's Machine with unknown masses

1. What is Atwood's Machine with unknown masses?

Atwood's Machine with unknown masses is a physics experiment that involves two masses connected by a string over a pulley. The masses are unknown, and the goal is to determine their values using the principles of Newton's laws.

2. How does Atwood's Machine with unknown masses work?

In this experiment, the two masses are connected by a string that passes over a pulley. One of the masses is unknown, while the other is known. By measuring the acceleration of the system, the unknown mass can be calculated using the equation: ma = m1g - m2g, where m is the unknown mass, m1 is the known mass, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

3. What are the key factors that affect Atwood's Machine with unknown masses?

The key factors that affect Atwood's Machine with unknown masses are the masses of the objects, the length of the string, and the friction present in the system. These factors can affect the acceleration and therefore the calculations for the unknown mass.

4. What are the applications of Atwood's Machine with unknown masses?

Atwood's Machine with unknown masses is used in physics classrooms to demonstrate the principles of Newton's laws of motion. It is also used in laboratory experiments to measure unknown masses and to study the effects of different factors on the acceleration of the system.

5. How is Atwood's Machine with unknown masses different from Atwood's Machine with known masses?

In Atwood's Machine with known masses, both masses are known, and the goal is to determine the tension in the string. In Atwood's Machine with unknown masses, one of the masses is unknown, and the goal is to determine its value. The calculations and equations used in both experiments are slightly different due to the unknown mass parameter.

Similar threads

Replies
97
Views
14K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Back
Top