B Displacement of Hanging Mass - Simple Pulley System

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the displacement of a hanging mass in a simple pulley system when the left cord is pulled. The user initially struggles to connect the change in length of the cord, denoted as ##l_x##, to the expected movement of the mass, which should be ##\frac{\delta}{2}##. A clarification is provided that differentiates between the distance pulled up, ##\delta##, and the resultant change in the mass's height. By introducing a fixed coordinate system with a reference point from the ceiling, the relationship between the lengths becomes clearer, allowing for the correct interpretation of how the mass moves. Ultimately, defining a fixed coordinate system resolves the confusion regarding the displacement calculations.
erobz
Gold Member
Messages
4,445
Reaction score
1,839
I'm having some kind of mental block.

2 to 1 - Pulley.jpg

If I extend ##l_x## by ##\delta## ,I expect the hanging mass to move ##\frac{ \delta}{2}##.

I can't figure out how this is the case from the constraint:

$$ l_x+l_1=C $$

##C## is an arbitrary length

I keep getting that ##l_1## changes by ##\delta##, but that must mean the height of the mass changes by ##\delta##...

:oldgrumpy:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I suspect you need to differentiate between the distance you pull the left hand cord up, ##\delta##, and the increase in distance from that point to the pulley, ##\frac \delta 2##.
 
Call the distance of the left end of the cord from the ceiling ##y##. Then ##l_x=l_1-y## and ##l_x=C-l_1## from the constraint given by the fixed length of the entire cord. Then you can eliminate the somewhat inconvenient quantity ##l_1## in favor of ##y## which has a well defined meaning of a coordinate, i.e., it's a length measured from a fixed reference point (the ceiling):
$$C-l_1=l_1-y \; \Rightarrow \; L_1=\frac{1}{2}(C+y).$$
So if you change ##y## by ##\delta## (which is the same as changing ##l_x## by ##-\delta##) ##L_1## (the distance of the pulley from the ceiling) changes by ##\delta/2##.
 
  • Like
Likes topsquark and erobz
vanhees71 said:
Then you can eliminate the somewhat inconvenient quantity ##l_1## in favor of ##y## which has a well defined meaning of a coordinate, i.e., it's a length measured from a fixed reference point (the ceiling):
The addition of the coordinate ##y## and the weirdness seems to vanish right in front of my eyes. Amazing!
 
Last edited:
My key failure was that I had not defined a fixed coordinate system. I basically was trying to measure distances relative the datum at the center of the pulley...a transformation not so obvious to me.
 
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...
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