How Does the Distance y Change When Mass x Varies in a Pulley System?

AI Thread Summary
In a pulley system with equal masses on both sides, the discussion focuses on how the distance y changes as mass x varies while maintaining static equilibrium. The angle theta between the rope and the vertical is crucial for determining the weight of the central mass, rather than the sag of the rope. It is clarified that the absolute level of y is necessary to calculate the angle and, consequently, the force. The participants agree that if the value of y is known, it can be used to determine the mass using the derived formula. The conversation highlights the importance of precise terminology and calculations in physics discussions.
person123
Messages
326
Reaction score
52
I was working on a pulley system as shown here:
pulley.png

The mass on the right and left side is equivalent, and I am solving for when the system is in static equilibrium. Theta is the angle between the rope on either side of one of the pulleys. H and y are both measured from the original position of mass M, not its current location (it was simply meant as a reference point). The mass of the rope and friction are ignored. I wanted to find how the distance y changes as the mass x changes.

I first found the acceleration of the object, which is of course 0:
force.png

acceleration.png

I then solved for theta, giving me:
theta.png

I then was able to find cosΘ:
costan.png

And I was then able to find the final equation by setting the first equation equal to 0:
equation final.png


Here is a link to the graph: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wpttkfsvmb

I imagine that this system may be used as a balance, in which the sag of the rope tells you the mass of x as based on the equation. Would that be possible? Thanks in advance.

(As a side note, I feel dumb showing my work in the form of images, but I can't figure out how to use BB code editor—I might just be missing something obvious).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
person123 said:
I imagine that this system may be used as a balance, in which the sag of the rope tells you the mass of x as based on the equation. Would that be possible?
Yes it can be used as a balance. It's the angle of the rope to the vertical, not the sag, that tells us the weight of the central mass.
 
andrewkirk said:
Yes it can be used as a balance. It's the angle of the rope to the vertical, not the sag, that tells us the weight of the central mass.
Could you also use the equation to find the mass of the object based on the vertical descent, or the change in y? (It may have been inaccurate to call that a sag).
 
person123 said:
Could you also use the equation to find the mass of the object based on the vertical descent, or the change in y? (It may have been inaccurate to call that a sag).
No. We need the absolute level of y, not just its change, in order to calculate the angle. And we need the angle in order to calculate the force.
 
andrewkirk said:
No. We need the absolute level of y, not just its change, in order to calculate the angle. And we need the angle in order to calculate the force.
Yes—so if you were to know y, or the vertical position of the mass m, would you be able to determine the mass based on the formula I wrote? I should have wrote the value of y instead of the change in y.
 
person123 said:
Yes—so if you were to know y, or the vertical position of the mass m, would you be able to determine the mass based on the formula I wrote? I should have wrote the value of y instead of the change in y.
Yes we could determine the mass based on a formula of that sort. I have not checked the calculations to see whether the formula is exactly correct.
 
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