Acceleration of system related to rolling motion and pulley

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a system involving a rolling sphere and a pulley, specifically addressing the conditions for rolling without slipping. The participants analyze the equations of motion for both the sphere and the hanging mass, concluding that friction is essential for the sphere to roll without slipping. They highlight that the acceleration of the center of mass (CoM) of the sphere differs from that of the hanging mass, leading to confusion regarding the term "acceleration of the system." The consensus is that the problem requires clarification on which acceleration is being referenced, as both the CoM of the sphere and the hanging mass exhibit different behaviors under the influence of gravity and tension.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Familiarity with rotational dynamics and torque equations
  • Knowledge of static and kinetic friction principles
  • Basic concepts of center of mass and acceleration in mechanical systems
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of rolling motion and the conditions for rolling without slipping
  • Learn about the equations of motion for systems involving pulleys and multiple masses
  • Explore the effects of static and kinetic friction on rolling objects
  • Investigate the relationship between linear acceleration and angular acceleration in rigid bodies
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, mechanical engineers, and anyone interested in understanding the dynamics of rolling motion and pulley systems will benefit from this discussion.

  • #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
1K
  • · 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
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K