Can 600 N Pull the Same Cart Twice? - Get a Second Opinion!

  • Thread starter Thread starter qwexor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cart Pull
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on comparing the acceleration of a cart being pulled by a man exerting a force of 600 N versus an iron weight of 60 kg attached to a rope. Both scenarios result in the same force of 600 N acting on the cart, leading to the conclusion that the acceleration will be identical in both cases. The calculations confirm this, as the acceleration is derived using the formula a = F/m, yielding a consistent value of 12 m/s². The angle of tension does not affect the acceleration as long as it remains constant. Overall, the analysis supports that both methods produce the same acceleration for the cart.
qwexor
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Force Question - Still want another oppinion!

A man pulls a cart on a friction fee surface by means of a pulley and rope. He pulls the rope at 600 N. Now replace the man's action with an iron weight of 60 kg so that it is attached to the end of the rope. The cart is again set in motion. Is the acceleration the same in both situations. ( Use g to 10m/s/s) , (mass of cart = 50kg)

You can see a picture of the situation here: http://www.members.shaw.ca/qwex/physics.jpg

So my assumption is that both the man and the weight would pull with 600 N downwards. So would this make the acceleration the same. I'm guessing the distance is the same in both situations as well. Is there any way I can explain this? Am I even correct? Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you are right, the acceleration would be the same since to determine the force that the iron pulls the cart. We use the formula:
F = ma = 60 x 10 = 600 N which is the same as the force that the man pulls the rope.

XMLT
 
Thanks! Any one else?
 
Acceleration will be the same, it depends only on the force applied to it. If the angle, at which tension is prodced, is same then the acc. will be the same.
To show it correct prove it mathematically or go to the experiments.
a = f/m = 600/50 = 12 (man pulled)
a = f/m = (M*g)/m = 60*10/50 = 12
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top