Conservation of the string length in pulleys

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

This discussion revolves around a problem involving a massless string and pulleys, specifically focusing on the relationship between the lengths of the string segments as they change. Participants are examining the equation l_2 + 2l_1 = constant and questioning the reasoning behind it.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the implications of changes in string lengths rather than their absolute values. Questions arise about the relationship between the lengths l_1 and l_2, particularly regarding why 2l_1 is considered in the context of the total string length.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the relationships between the variables involved. Some have offered alternative perspectives on how to approach the problem, while others express confusion about specific aspects of the differentiation process and the constants involved.

Contextual Notes

There are ongoing questions about the constancy of certain distances, such as the elevation between pulleys, which may affect the understanding of the problem setup. Participants are encouraged to clarify their assumptions regarding these distances.

Bunny-chan
Messages
105
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


84bf5fb6de3049c098b9b20e511f9d7f.png

This is a common massless string and pulleys problem. I'd just like to understand why, according to the solution, [itex]l_2 + 2l_1 =[/itex] constant. It doesn't seem to me that two times the [itex]l_1[/itex] length is equivalent to [itex]l_2[/itex]. Can somebody explain?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-5-27_1-54-5.png
    upload_2017-5-27_1-54-5.png
    6 KB · Views: 933
Physics news on Phys.org
Bunny-chan said:
doesn't seem to me that two times the ##l_1## length is equivalent to ##l_2##
Indeed not, but that would lead to ##2l_1-l_2## is constant, which is not what is claimed.
Besides, you need to think about changes in the lengths, not the absolute lengths. If l1 increases by x, what happens to l2?
 
haruspex said:
Indeed not, but that would lead to ##2l_1-l_2## is constant, which is not what is claimed.
Besides, you need to think about changes in the lengths, not the absolute lengths. If l1 increases by x, what happens to l2?
Hm. Will it decrease? Because if [itex]m_1[/itex] goes down, it means [itex]m_2[/itex] has to go up, right?
 
Let x be the distance in elevation between the center of pulley 1 and the center of pulley 2, y be the distance between the elevation of the center of pulley 2 and the ceiling, z be the distance in elevation between mass 2 and the center of pulley 2, and w be the distance in elevation between mass 1 and the center of pulley 1. So the total length of string is L=2x+y+z. The distance l2 is given by ##l_2=z+y## and the distance l1 is ##l_1=x+y+w##. So, $$2l_1+l_2=(2x+z)+3y+2w=L+3y+2w$$ But, since L, y, and w are constant, ##2l_1+l_2## must be constant.
 
Chestermiller said:
So, $$2l_1+l_2=(2x+z)+3y+2w=L+3y+2w$$ But, since L, y, and w are constant, ##2l_1+l_2## must be constant.
I was able to understand everything before this point. Why do you take [itex]2l_1[/itex]?
 
Bunny-chan said:
I was able to understand everything before this point. Why do you take [itex]2l_1[/itex]?
I do ##2l_1## because I need 2x.

Incidentally, I would never have done this problem in terms of l1 and l2. I would have immediately written down the total length as ##L=2x+y+z##, and then differentiated to get $$\frac{dL}{dt}=0=2\frac{dx}{dt}+\frac{dz}{dt}$$ If m1 moves down at the rate of dx/dt, m2 moves up at the rate of -dz/dt.
 
Chestermiller said:
I do ##2l_1## because I need 2x.

Incidentally, I would never have done this problem in terms of l1 and l2. I would have immediately written down the total length as ##L=2x+y+z##, and then differentiated to get $$\frac{dL}{dt}=0=2\frac{dx}{dt}+\frac{dz}{dt}$$ If m1 moves down at the rate of dx/dt, m2 moves up at the rate of -dz/dt.
OK. I get it now, but I don't quite understand the differentiation.
 
Bunny-chan said:
OK. I get it now, but I don't quite understand the differentiation.
What part don't you understand?
 
Chestermiller said:
What part don't you understand?
Where did the [itex]y[/itex] term go to?
 
  • #10
Bunny-chan said:
Where did the [itex]y[/itex] term go to?
What is the derivative of y with respect to time?
 
  • #11
Chestermiller said:
What is the derivative of y with respect to time?
[itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex]? But since it is constant, it equals 0? Is that so?
 
  • #12
Bunny-chan said:
[itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex]? But since it is constant, it equals 0? Is that so?
Sure
 
  • #13
Chestermiller said:
Sure
But isn't [itex]x[/itex] also constant? I mean, the distance in elevation between the center of pulley 1 and the center of pulley 2 will always be the same, won't it?
 
  • #14
Bunny-chan said:
But isn't [itex]x[/itex] also constant? I mean, the distance in elevation between the center of pulley 1 and the center of pulley 2 will always be the same, won't it?
No, why?
 
  • #15
Bunny-chan said:
But isn't [itex]x[/itex] also constant? I mean, the distance in elevation between the center of pulley 1 and the center of pulley 2 will always be the same, won't it?
No
 
  • #16
Chestermiller said:
No
Nevermind. I can see that now. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K