Acceleration of system related to rolling motion and pulley

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics problem involving the acceleration of a system related to rolling motion and a pulley. The original poster is exploring the dynamics of a sphere rolling on a frictionless plane while connected to another mass via a pulley system. There are questions regarding the conditions for rolling without slipping and the implications of the system's acceleration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive equations of motion for the system but questions the feasibility of the results, particularly regarding the role of friction and the definition of "acceleration of system." Other participants suggest that friction is necessary for rolling without slipping and discuss the implications of different tensions in the pulley system.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively questioning the assumptions made in the problem, particularly regarding friction and the relationship between the accelerations of the different masses involved. There is a recognition of the ambiguity in the term "acceleration of system," with suggestions to calculate both relevant accelerations for clarity.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted lack of information regarding the radius of the sphere and the specifics of how the string is attached to it, which complicates the analysis. Additionally, the problem does not provide dimensions, leading to further uncertainty in the calculations.

  • #31
Please forgive me for going off-topic but the image in @Lnewqban ’s Post #29
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/manlift-jpg.305490/
immediately reminded me of an (IMO funny) Irish folk song.

For anyone so inclined - and having three minutes to spare - here it is (with lyrics).
Edit: The only song I know about Atwood machines!

Otherwise, please ignore.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: songoku
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Thank you, @kuruman.
I would pick items 1 and 3, because those are the only ones having linear accelerations (here assuming that that is the type of acceleration requested to be calculated by the problem).

Item 5 must be considered as well because it determines the fraction of the weight of item 1 that is resisting the weight of item 3 (driving force in the system), or tension in item 4.

The rotational inertia of items 1 and 2 also resist the effect of the driving force; therefore, both need to be considered.
 
  • #33
Lnewqban said:
Thank you, @kuruman.
I would pick items 1 and 3, because those are the only ones having linear accelerations (here assuming that that is the type of acceleration requested to be calculated by the problem).

Item 5 must be considered as well because it determines the fraction of the weight of item 1 that is resisting the weight of item 3 (driving force in the system), or tension in item 4.

The rotational inertia of items 1 and 2 also resist the effect of the driving force; therefore, both need to be considered.
You originally proposed taking the vector sum of the two accelerations, which is bizarre.

In post #23, you mention COM, so you might be proposing the acceleration of the mass centre of the system consisting of the two linearly moving masses. If so, @kuruman already offered that in post #17, and I agreed that was defensible.
But I could also interpret your post as meaning the weighted average of the magnitudes of the two linear accelerations, which also has some validity. That interpretation seems to be supported by posts #29 and #32.

But the whole discussion is fruitless. The question does not define "the system" (why exclude the massive pulley?), it does not mention magnitudes and does not mention COM. If we're playing guess the question setter's intent, it is clear s/he overlooked the ambiguity, so may well have just been thinking of the descending mass.

@songoku has solved the problem as far as is possible.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: erobz
  • #34
haruspex said:
You originally proposed taking the vector sum of the two accelerations, which is bizarre.
Would you mind explaining why do you believe so?
 
  • #35
Lnewqban said:
Would you mind explaining why do you believe so?
Because it has no physical meaning, as illustrated by my example in post #16.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SammyS
  • #36
Thank you very much for all the help and explanation Lnewqban, erobz, kuruman, haruspex, Steve4Physics, jbriggs444, malawi_glenn
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: erobz and Lnewqban

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 97 ·
4
Replies
97
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
4K
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K