Friction of a rope wound around a stationary rod

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a scenario where a man is holding a weight using a rope wrapped around a stationary rod. The focus is on determining the minimum number of wraps required for the rope, given the coefficient of static friction and the mass of the weight. The rope is assumed to be massless, and the configuration includes vertical sections of rope.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the equations related to friction and tension in the rope, questioning their correctness. Some suggest using calculus to derive the normal force and frictional force along the rope. The Capstan Equation is mentioned as a relevant governing equation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of calculus and the Capstan Equation, but there is no explicit consensus on the approach or solution yet.

Contextual Notes

There are assumptions about the massless nature of the rope and the implications for the normal force. The discussion also touches on the effects of the rod being stationary and the nature of friction in this context.

TheLil'Turkey
Messages
66
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A 100 kg man holds up a 1000 kg weight by holding on to a rope that is wrapped around a stationary horizontal rod whose other end is tied to the suspended weight. If the coefficient of static friction between the rope and rod is 0.5, what is the minimum number of times that the rope must be wrapped around the rod?
Edit: Assume the rope is massless.
Edit 2: The rope that is not in contact with the stationary rod is vertical.

Homework Equations



F(friction) = μ*m(weight)*g*θ/2∏, m(man)*g+F(friction)=m(weight)*g

The Attempt at a Solution



If the equations I wrote are correct, the problem is easy to solve, but I think they might be wrong. Could someone please explain why they are or aren't correct? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The normal force between the rope and the rod is not the weight of the suspended mass. It will not even be constant along the section of rope touching the rod.
You need to use calculus. Consider a short section of rope around the circumference of the rod making angle dθ at the centre. The tension is T(θ) at one end and T(θ+dθ) at the other. Deduce the normal force and hence the max frictional force. Get an equation relating that to T(θ) etc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
When a rope is wrapped around a pole, things get a bit more interesting. The governing equation that you want is called the Capstan Equation. (Which can be derived with a bit of calculus.)
 
I forgot to mention that the rope is massless in the problem. I believe that in this case the normal force per unit angle will be constant along the section of rope touching the rod, right?
 
TheLil'Turkey said:
I forgot to mention that the rope is massless in the problem. I believe that in this case the normal force per unit angle will be constant along the section of rope touching the rod, right?

The rod is stationary, so it does not matter if massless or not. The rope can slide on it, friction between the rope and rod opposes sliding.


ehild
 
ehild said:
The rope can slide on it, friction between the rope and rod opposes sliding.
ehild
... so if you consider a short section of the rope, the friction is acting along the rope. It follows that the tension at one end is different from that at the other.
 
Thank you very much haruspex and Doc Al. I just finished deriving the correct formula and answering the question. The minimum angle is 4.6 radians. Since this is greater than pi radians, the rope has to loop an extra time around the rod so the angle will be 3 pi radians (since the rope is vertical at both ends).

ehild, if you want to understand the problem, this youtube video might help: I found it much clearer than the derivation on wikipedia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheLil'Turkey said:
ehild, if you want to understand the problem, this youtube video might help: I found it much clearer than the derivation on wikipedia.

I think ehild understands it already :smile:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
haruspex said:
I think ehild understands it already :smile:.

Well, I derived the formula before anybody answered, but was not sure it was correct. It was too simple. :biggrin:

ehild
 
  • #10
haruspex said:
I think ehild understands it already :smile:.
:-p
 
  • #11
Thanks for the link, Doc. I never heard Capstan equation before. :smile:

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K