MHB Calculating Angular and Linear Speeds of Pulley and Belt

  • Thread starter Thread starter karush
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Belt Pulley
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
A pulley has a radius of $12.96\text { cm}$
it takes $18\text { s}$ for $56\text { cm}$ of belt to go around the pulley.

(a) find the angular speed of the pulley in $\displaystyle\frac{\text {rad}}{\text{s}}$

well from $\displaystyle\frac{56\text { cm}}{18\text{ s}}
\approx \frac{3.11\text { cm}}{\text{s}}$

and $\displaystyle\text {rad}=\frac{S}{r}
=\frac{3.11\text { cm}}{12.96\text { cm}}

\approx 0.34 \text{ rad}$

since $\text{S}$ is the arc length for one $\text{s}$ then

$\displaystyle\approx \frac{0.34\text {rad}}{\text{s}}$ angular speed

(b) find the linear speed of the belt in $\displaystyle\frac{\text {cm}}{\text{s}}
\approx \frac{3.11\text { cm}}{\text{s}}$

well if correct?? it seem a little bit choppy way to solve it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
karush said:
A pulley has a radius of $12.96\text { cm}$
it takes $18\text { s}$ for $56\text { cm}$ of belt to go around the pulley.

(a) find the angular speed of the pulley in $\displaystyle\frac{\text {rad}}{\text{s}}$

well from $\displaystyle\frac{56\text { cm}}{18\text{ s}}
\approx \frac{3.11\text { cm}}{\text{s}}$

and $\displaystyle\text {rad}=\frac{S}{r}
=\frac{3.11\text { cm}}{12.96\text { cm}}

\approx 0.34 \text{ rad}$

since $\text{S}$ is the arc length for one $\text{s}$ then

$\displaystyle\approx \frac{0.34\text {rad}}{\text{s}}$ angular speed

(b) find the linear speed of the belt in $\displaystyle\frac{\text {cm}}{\text{s}}
\approx \frac{3.11\text { cm}}{\text{s}}$

well if correct?? it seem a little bit choppy way to solve it.

Yeah. It's a bit choppy. ;)

There is a difference between quantities and units.
Speed is a quantity, rad is a unit.
Note that rad is a rather special unit, since it's a dimensionless unit like "rev".
Take care though, since you have $2\pi \text{ rad}$ in one $\text{rev}$.

The usual symbol for the quantity angular speed is $\omega$, which has the unit $\text{rad/s}$.

Btw, can I assume that with S you meant the speed of the belt?
I'm asking since the usual symbol for speed is v.

Anyway, in that case you have for (a):
$$\omega = \frac S r = \frac {3.11\frac{\text{cm}}{\text{s}}}{12.96\text { cm}} = 0.24 \frac{\text{rad}}{\text{s}}$$
So I'm afraid your answer is not quite right, neither numerically, nor in the specification of the units.

Your answer for (b) is correct though.
 
I like Serena said:
Btw, can I assume that with S you meant the speed of the belt?
I'm asking since the usual symbol for speed is v.

OK, well, from the book i am looking at
$\text{s} = \text{arc length}$ so $\displaystyle\text{a}=\frac{s}{r}$

where $\text{r}=$ radius
and $\text{a}=$ angle in degrees or radians

this is confusing since $\text{s}$ looks like it is speed or seconds but is arc length
which I capitalized earlier to distinguish from speed or seconds.
so what is meant is.$\displaystyle\text {rad}=\frac{s}{r} =\frac{3.11\text { cm}}{12.96\text { cm}} \approx 0.34 \text{ rad}$

and so

$\displaystyle\omega = \frac{a}{t} = \frac {0.34\text{rad}}{sec}$

or is this fog over choppy waters
the notation is kinda well..
 
Last edited:
karush said:
ok, well, from the book i am looking at
$\text{s} = \text{arc length}$ so $\displaystyle\text{a}=\frac{s}{r}$

where $\text{r}=$ radius
and $\text{a}=$ angle in degrees or radians

this is confusing since $\text{s}$ looks like it is speed or seconds but is arc length
which I capitalized earlier to distinguish from speed or seconds.
so what is meant is.$\displaystyle\text {rad}=\frac{s}{r} =\frac{3.11\text { cm}}{12.96\text { cm}} \approx 0.34 \text{ rad}$

and so

$\displaystyle\omega = \frac{a}{t} = \frac {0.34\text{rad}}{sec}$

or is this fog over choppy waters
the notation is kinda well..

Ah okay.
Actually you can distinguish the distance $s$ from seconds $\text{s}$ by italic versus upright.
It's unusual though to use $a$ as an angle. The symbol $a$ is usually an acceleration. Angle is usually denoted as $\phi$ or $\theta$.

Anyway, what you should have is that in a period of $t=1\text{ s}$ the belt travels a distance $s=3.11\text { cm}$ along a radius $r=12.96\text { cm}$.
The corresponding angle is:
$$a =\frac{s}{r} =\frac{3.11\text { cm}}{12.96\text { cm}} = 0.24 \text{ rad}$$
Therefore the corresponding angular speed is:
$$\omega = \frac{a}{t} = 0.24 \frac {\text{rad}}{\text{s}}$$Alternatively you could say that in a period of $t=18\text{ s}$ the belt travels a distance $s=56\text{ cm}$ along a radius of $r=12.96\text { cm}$.
Then the corresponding angle is:
$$a =\frac{s}{r} =\frac{56\text { cm}}{12.96\text { cm}} = \frac{56}{12.96} \text{ rad}$$
And the corresponding angular speed is:
$$\omega = \frac{a}{t} = \frac {\frac{56}{12.96}}{18} \frac{\text{rad}}{\text{s}} = 0.24 \frac {\text{rad}}{\text{s}}$$
 
OK, think i am getting the picture... so .24 not .34 calc error

you were a great help these textbooks are sometimes shy on info to understand...

I post a couple more of these to make sure I have it down...
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
14K
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top