Faulty approach to solving a double Atwood's machine

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a double Atwood's machine problem, specifically focusing on the accelerations of three masses, ##m_1##, ##m_2##, and ##m_3##. The original poster expresses confusion regarding their approach and the resulting equations derived from the problem statement.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster outlines their attempt at solving the problem using equations based on forces and tensions in the system. They express uncertainty about a missing term in their final expression for ##a_1##. Other participants question the validity of the conservation of string assumption made by the original poster, suggesting that it may not hold in the reference frame used.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's reasoning, with one participant pointing out a potential error in the application of the conservation of string. The original poster acknowledges a realization regarding the reference frame, indicating a productive direction in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

The problem is constrained by the assumption of massless pulleys and ropes, and the need to define the direction of acceleration. There is an ongoing exploration of how different reference frames affect the relationships between the accelerations of the masses.

Rations
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello. I'm wondering why my approach to solving this problem (Morin 3.2) is faulty.

Homework Statement


A double Atwood's machine is shown, with masses ##m_1##, ##m_2##, and ##m_3##. Find the accelerations of the masses.
3.2.PNG


Homework Equations


##F = ma##

The Attempt at a Solution


Let's say the string over the bottom pulley has tension ##T## and the string over the top pulley has tension ##T_2##. Assuming that the pulleys and ropes are massless and defining the upwards direction as positive, I have several equations:

(1) For ##m_1##: ##T_2 - m_1g = m_1a_1##
(2) For ##m_2##: ##T - m_2g = m_2a_2##
(3) For ##m_3##: ##T - m_3g = m_3a_3##
(4) For the lower pulley: ##T_2 - 2T = 0##
(5) From conservation of string: ##a_2 = -a_3##

If I substitute ##-a_3## into (2) and then solve (2) and (3) for ##T##, I find ##T = \frac{2m_2m_3g}{m_2 + m_3}##. From (4), ##T_2## is twice this value.

Then, I substitute my expression for ##T_2## into (1) and solve for ##a_1##, which yields:
a_1 = g\frac{4m_2m_3 - m_1(m_2 + m_3)}{m_1(m_2 + m_3)}

This answer is close to what Morin writes, but is missing a term in the denominator. After reading his solution, which uses the fact that ##a_1 = -\left(\frac{a_2 + a_3}{2}\right)##, I feel that I can understand why his approach works. However, I do not see where I made a mistake.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Rations said:
From conservation of string: a2=−a3a_2 = -a_3

This is where you have made a mistake . Why ?

Conservation of string can be looked at in two ways .
Since you use all accelerations in one direction , this would be an easier way to understand -

Total power by string must be zero ( Why ? ) . Power = F.v , so total sum of of each individual power provided by string must be equal to zero .

So 2T*v1 + T*v2 + T*v3 = 0 , or ,
2v1 + v2 + v3 = 0 .

So what relation do you get for acceleration ?

I hope this helps .
 
Oh, right. I just realized that ##a_2 = -a_3## only holds in the reference frame of the pulley, not the ground. Don't know why that point eluded me for so long. Thanks.
 
Rations said:
Hello. I'm wondering why my approach to solving this problem (Morin 3.2) is faulty.

Homework Statement


A double Atwood's machine is shown, with masses ##m_1##, ##m_2##, and ##m_3##. Find the accelerations of the masses.
View attachment 86504

Homework Equations


##F = ma##

The Attempt at a Solution


Let's say the string over the bottom pulley has tension ##T## and the string over the top pulley has tension ##T_2##. Assuming that the pulleys and ropes are massless and defining the upwards direction as positive, I have several equations:

(1) For ##m_1##: ##T_2 - m_1g = m_1a_1##
(2) For ##m_2##: ##T - m_2g = m_2a_2##
(3) For ##m_3##: ##T - m_3g = m_3a_3##
(4) For the lower pulley: ##T_2 - 2T = 0##
(5) From conservation of string: ##a_2 = -a_3##

If I substitute ##-a_3## into (2) and then solve (2) and (3) for ##T##, I find ##T = \frac{2m_2m_3g}{m_2 + m_3}##. From (4), ##T_2## is twice this value.

Then, I substitute my expression for ##T_2## into (1) and solve for ##a_1##, which yields:
a_1 = g\frac{4m_2m_3 - m_1(m_2 + m_3)}{m_1(m_2 + m_3)}

This answer is close to what Morin writes, but is missing a term in the denominator. After reading his solution, which uses the fact that ##a_1 = -\left(\frac{a_2 + a_3}{2}\right)##, I feel that I can understand why his approach works. However, I do not see where I made a mistake.
Your error is with the equation you get from the "conservation of string", as Qwertywerty points out.

A simple way to see that this is erroneous is: Suppose that m2 = m3 . Then we must have a2 = a3 , but these won't be zero in general.
 

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K