Does the Relation ##T_2 = T_1 e^{\mu \theta}## Hold for an Accelerating Capstan?

  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accelerating
AI Thread Summary
The relation T_2 = T_1 e^{\mu \theta} holds for a massless rope around a pulley with friction, where T_1 and T_2 are tensions and μ is the coefficient of friction. The torque on the pulley due to friction is expressed as R(T_2 - T_1), and the net force on the pulley is derived from the tension components along the axis of symmetry. The discussion explores whether this relation is valid under conditions of acceleration for the rope or pulley. It concludes that the net force on any string element remains zero regardless of motion, confirming that the relation is always applicable for massless strings. Thus, no additional proof is necessary for the validity of the relation under these conditions.
etotheipi
For a massless rope wrapped around a pulley with friction, it can be shown via integrating over string elements that the tensions on either side of the pulley are related by ##T_2 = T_1 e^{\mu \theta}##, if ##\mu## is the coefficient of friction and ##\theta## is the angle subtended by the rope in contact with the pulley. Details on this derivation for the case where the system is in static equilibrium can be found here, under section 2.

It is subsequently possible to show that the torque on the pulley due to friction equals ##R(T_2 - T_1)## and the net force on the pulley due to the string equals the component of ##\vec{T}_1 + \vec{T}_2## in a direction along the axis of symmetry of these two forces.

I wondered if the relation ##T_2 = T_1 e^{\mu \theta}## could also be shown to be valid if the rope was instead accelerating around the pulley, or even if the pulley itself were undergoing translational acceleration (assuming it retains contact with the rope)? Or whether it no longer applies. Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I figured it out, the net force on any individual element of string must be zero regardless of the state of motion of the string, since the string element is massless. So this result holds always for massless strings, and no further proof is required.
 
  • Like
Likes Lnewqban, vanhees71, anorlunda and 1 other person
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top