1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Homework Help: Acceleration of a pulley

  1. Sep 20, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    A horizontal force F is applied to a frictionless pulley of mass m2. The horizontal surface is smooth. Show that the acceleration of the block of mass m1 is twice the acceleration of the pulley.

    LOOKS LIKE THIS: http://cnx.org/content/m14060/latest/npq1.gif
    But WITHOUT block B and its string.

    2. Relevant equations
    F=ma


    3. The attempt at a solution
    I drew separate force diagrams for m1 (the block) and m2 (the pulley. In the x direction, the block is only being acted on by T1 going in the pos. x direction. In the x direction, the pulley is being acted on by 2T1 and F. 2T1 is going in the neg. x direction. F, the opposite.

    I have to show that a1= 2a2

    So:

    The pulley is in equilibrium:
    F-2T1 = 0
    m2a2 - 2(m1a1)=0

    . . .and I don't know where to go from here. . . .I can't eliminate mass. . .


    Thank you in advance!
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 20, 2010 #2
    It is easy to see that the pulley is moving. Let s_1 be the distance between pulley and A, s_2 be the distance between pulley and B. During the pull, s_2 stays constant. For s_1, it is decreasing right? But that section goes to the upper side of the pulley, so we can set 2s_1 equals also a constant. the reason of 2s_1 comes from the initial situation, we ignore the upper portion that is left of the originial position of A.

    Hence 2s_1+s_2=constant, differentiate twice yields your desired result.
     
  4. Sep 20, 2010 #3
    Oh. IDK why I thought the pulley was in equilibrium.

    Thank you so much!!
     
  5. Sep 20, 2010 #4
    I made the same mistake as you when I was having a introductory mechanics class.
    The method I present here is sometimes refered to no-stretch assumption. I don't know why the method is always not mentioned in the textbooks. Is it too obvious for the authors?
     
  6. Sep 20, 2010 #5
    I suppose they think so! The textbook (College Physics, 3rd ed. Serway & Faughn) says nothing about using distances and time derivatives . . . xD

    Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2010
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook