Can you find tension on a string without mass

AI Thread Summary
In a pulley system with three masses, two are hanging while one is on a table, with the right mass being twice the left's mass. The discussion revolves around whether the system is in mechanical equilibrium. Participants suggest drawing free body diagrams for clarity on the forces acting on each mass. The key question is about the sum of forces on each mass and the implications of setting them to zero. Understanding these forces is crucial for analyzing the tension in the string despite the absence of mass values.
faisalcrazy
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
So my pulley system has 3 masses two of which are connected to a center mass on top of a table. No mass was given for any of the objects but of two masses hanging from the table, the one on the right is 2 times the mass on the left. I hope I haven't confused you but its like a three step diagram so I'm going to try make a picture for you

M2(free weight)-----^M1(on table)------M3(free weight,X2 the mass)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are the weights supposed to be in mechanical equilibrium? I recommend drawing a free body diagram for each mass.
 
Geofleur said:
Are the weights supposed to be in mechanical equilibrium? I recommend drawing a free body diagram for each mass.

Yes they are and I have! it was also given with a free body diagram that's why I tried to draw it out for you
 
What forces do you get acting on each mass? What happens when you set the sum of the forces on each mass to zero?
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
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