Distance the lower pulley moves all 3 ropes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Magos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pulley
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the mechanical advantage provided by a specific pulley setup, with participants agreeing that the lower pulley reduces the necessary force to one-third of what would be needed without it. Each movement of the lower pulley affects all three ropes, leading to a reduction in force required. Clarification is provided that the pulley does indeed offer a mechanical advantage rather than merely redirecting force. The tension vectors in the system are analyzed, confirming that the tension in the ropes equals one-third of the weight being lifted. Overall, the consensus is that the mechanical advantage of the pulley system is three.
Magos
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Consider this pulley:
http://67.18.37.18/1014/142/upload/p1957458.png

There has been some discussion at a forum whether this pulley reduces the necessary force to 1/2 or to 1/3 of a "non-pullied" rope. I'm strongly for 1/3 basically since for each distance the lower pulley moves all 3 ropes are moved = 3 times the distance = 3 times less force. I'm just posting this here to get a more accurate answer since, well, it's a physics forum :).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct. Sometimes there is confusion about whether a pulley actuall provides a mechanical advantage or is just re-directing the force. Since line from the lower pulley is straight up, that pulley does give a mechanical advantage.
 
I'll second russ' opinion on that and yours on the M.A = 3 statement.

The easiest way to show this is by drawing and labeling all the tension vectors in the different sections of string. On the lower pulley, there are three upward forces, all equal in magnitude to T, the tension. So, in equilibrium, you have 3T = W or T = W/3. But clearly F = T, at the end of the rope. So, W/F = M.A = 3
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top