How Do Pulley Systems Affect Mass Acceleration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Karol
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pulleys
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a pulley system involving multiple masses and their accelerations. Participants are exploring the relationships between the accelerations of different masses and the conditions under which one mass will move upwards. The subject area includes concepts from dynamics and kinematics.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants present various equations relating the accelerations of the masses and question the validity of each other's kinematic equations. There are attempts to derive conditions for mass movements based on the derived equations.

Discussion Status

There is ongoing exploration of the relationships between the accelerations of the masses, with some participants agreeing on certain equations while others express skepticism about the results. Multiple interpretations of the equations and their implications are being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note discrepancies in the equations and question assumptions regarding the constraints of the pulley system. There are mentions of specific conditions under which certain masses accelerate faster than gravity, but no consensus has been reached on the final outcomes.

Karol
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
22

Homework Statement


Snap1.jpg

1) Which mass accelerates faster than g
2) What's m1's acceleration
3) In which condition m3 will move upwards, if they start from rest

Homework Equations


Mass-acceleration: F=ma

The Attempt at a Solution


$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_2+2a_1 \\ (2)~2T_3+m_2g-T_3=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T_3=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T_3-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$\rightarrow~a_2=\frac{m_1m_2+4m_2m_3+3m_1m_3}{m_1m_2+4m_2m_3-2m_1m_3}g$$
The fraction is always greater than 1, so a2 accelerates faster than g.
$$a_1=\frac{m_1m_2-6m_2m_3-2m_1m_3}{m_1m_2+4m_2m_3-2m_1m_3}g$$
3) eq' (1):
$$a_3=2a_2+2a_1~~\rightarrow~~a_3=\left( \frac{2m_1m_2-2m_2m_3+m_1m_3}{m_1m_2+4m_2m_3-2m_1m_3} \right)2g$$
I made eq' (4) as m3 ascending, so if a3 is positive-it ascends. from (5) two conditions are necessary, either both, the nominator and denominator are positive or are they negative. the first scenario:
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} (6)~2m_1m_2-2m_2m_3+m_1m_3>0 \\ (7)~m_1m_2+4m_2m_3-2m_1m_3>0 \end{array}\right.$$
From (6) i get (i multiply by 2): ##4m_1m_2+2m_1m_3>4m_2m_3##
From (7): ##m_1m_2+4m_2m_3>2m_1m_3##
I combine those 2 to get: ##5m_2>0##, but this is always true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't match your kinematic equation (1).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TSny
Chestermiller said:
I don't match your kinematic equation (1).
Snap1.jpg
The initial length of the rope equals to it's length after the change:
$$x_1+x_2+(x_1-x_2)+x_3=(x_2+\Delta_2)+(x_1+\Delta_1)+(x_1-x_2-\Delta_2+\Delta_1)+(x_3-\Delta_3)$$
$$\rightarrow~2\Delta_1=\Delta_3\rightarrow~2a_1=a_3$$
 
Call ##y_1## the distance between the center of the upper pulley and the center of the middle pulley, ##y_2## the distance between the center of the middle pulley and the center of the bottom pulley, and ##y_3## the distance between the center of the middle pulley and mass 3. Then the total length of rope (excluding the parts wrapped on the pulleys, which are constant) is $$L=2y_1+2y_2 +y_3$$ Since the length L is constant, $$2\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+2\frac{d^2y_2}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_3}{dt^2}=0$$In terms of these parameters, $$a_1=\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_2}{dt^2}$$
$$a_2=\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}$$
$$a_3=-\left(\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_3}{dt^2}\right)$$
From these equations, if follows that $$a_3=2a_1-a_2$$
 
Last edited:
I worked the problem and I agree with Karol, concerning the constraint equation. I have a hard time believing the the delta l2 cancels out but I used graph paper and tried to draw the system and the system at a later time and I got Karol's constraint equation. Mass 2 still has greater than acceleration g.
 
Karol said:
View attachment 106541 The initial length of the rope equals to it's length after the change:
$$x_1+x_2+(x_1-x_2)+x_3=(x_2+\Delta_2)+(x_1+\Delta_1)+(x_1-x_2-\Delta_2+\Delta_1)+(x_3-\Delta_3)$$
$$\rightarrow~2\Delta_1=\Delta_3\rightarrow~2a_1=a_3$$
You've defined ##x_3## as the displacement of ##m_3## from one of the moving pulleys. So, the acceleration determined by ##x_3## will be the acceleration of ##m_3## relative to that pulley rather than relative to the Earth frame of reference.
 
mpresic said:
I worked the problem and I agree with Karol, concerning the constraint equation. I have a hard time believing the the delta l2 cancels out but I used graph paper and tried to draw the system and the system at a later time and I got Karol's constraint equation. Mass 2 still has greater than acceleration g.
Show us what you did. TSny already demonstrated an error in Karol's result, so this must be a common feature of yours as well.

If there is something wrong with the simple and straightforward analysis I presented in post #4, please point it out.
 
Why don't you take into account ##\ddot y_2## in:
$$a_3=-\left(\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_3}{dt^2}\right)$$
 
Karol said:
Why don't you take into account ##\ddot y_2## in:
$$a_3=-\left(\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_3}{dt^2}\right)$$
In post.#4, I meant to say that y3 is the distance between the middle pulley and m3. I've gone back and changed it.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Chestermiller said:
In post.#4, I meant to say that y3 is the distance between the middle pulley and m3. I've gone back and changed it.
You didn't change anything, and it's like you've said in post #4:
Snap1.jpg
 
  • #11
Karol said:
You didn't change anything, and it's like you've said in post #4:
View attachment 106604
Yes, I did. I changed the word "lower" to "middle" in referring to y3. y3 is the distance between the center of the middle pulley and m3.
 
  • #12
Yes, that fixes it, thank you mpresic, TSny and Chestermiller.
But i forgot i didn't finish. m1's acceleration is ##a_1=\frac{a_3-a_2}{2}##
For m to accelerate upwards, from the relation: ##a_3=2a_1-a_2~~\rightarrow~~2a_1>a_2##
Now i will translate it to masses
 
Last edited:
  • #13
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_1-a_2 \\ (2)~2T_3+m_2g-T_3=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T_3=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T_3-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$\rightarrow~a_1=-\frac{m_3}{5m_2},~~a_3=\frac{m_3}{10m_2}-g$$
For m to move upwards, according to the direction in the drawing, a3 must be positive:
$$a_3>0~\rightarrow~~\frac{m_3}{10m_2}>g$$
 
  • #14
Karol said:
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_1-a_2 \\ (2)~2T_3+m_2g-T_3=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T_3=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T_3-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$\rightarrow~a_1=-\frac{m_3}{5m_2},~~a_3=\frac{m_3}{10m_2}-g$$
For m to move upwards, according to the direction in the drawing, a3 must be positive:
$$a_3>0~\rightarrow~~\frac{m_3}{10m_2}>g$$
That's not what I get.
 
  • #15
I agree with the 4 equations in post #14, but not with the results for a1 and a3.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Chestermiller
  • #16
I now agree with the four equations of Chestermiller, but I did have the wrong constraint equation earlier, I had a3 = 2 a1 (without a2). I looked at the length relative to the moving (pully), and not relative to the fixed (top) pulley. I now agree with the newest 4 equations
 
  • #17
TSny said:
I agree with the 4 equations in post #14, but not with the results for a1 and a3.
Thank you TSny,:
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_1-a_2 \\ (2)~2T_3+m_2g-T_3=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T_3=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T_3-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$(2)\& (4):~(5)~a_2=\frac{m_3}{m_2}a_3+\frac{m_3}{m_2}g+g$$
$$(3)\& (4):~(6)~a_3=\left( \frac{m_1-2m_3}{2m_3} \right)g-\frac{m_1}{2m_3}a_1$$
$$(1)\& (5)\& (6):~(7)~\left( \frac{m_1m_2+2m_3^2}{2m_2m_3} \right)g+\frac{m_3}{m_2}a_3=\left( 2+\frac{m_1}{2m_3} \right)a_1$$
$$(6)\& (7):~(8)~a_1=\frac{(m_2+m_3)g}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3}$$
$$(6)\& (8):~a_3=\frac{1}{2m_3}\left( m_1-2m_3-\frac{m_1(m2+m_3)}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3} \right)g$$
For m3 to move up it must be positive, in accordance with my drawing:
$$a_3>0~~\rightarrow~~m_1>2m_3+\frac{m_1(m_2+m_3)}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3}$$
 
  • #18
Karol said:
Thank you TSny,:
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_1-a_2 \\ (2)~2T_3+m_2g-T_3=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T_3=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T_3-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$(2)\& (4):~(5)~a_2=\frac{m_3}{m_2}a_3+\frac{m_3}{m_2}g+g$$
$$(3)\& (4):~(6)~a_3=\left( \frac{m_1-2m_3}{2m_3} \right)g-\frac{m_1}{2m_3}a_1$$
$$(1)\& (5)\& (6):~(7)~\left( \frac{m_1m_2+2m_3^2}{2m_2m_3} \right)g+\frac{m_3}{m_2}a_3=\left( 2+\frac{m_1}{2m_3} \right)a_1$$
$$(6)\& (7):~(8)~a_1=\frac{(m_2+m_3)g}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3}$$
$$(6)\& (8):~a_3=\frac{1}{2m_3}\left( m_1-2m_3-\frac{m_1(m2+m_3)}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3} \right)g$$
For m3 to move up it must be positive, in accordance with my drawing:
$$a_3>0~~\rightarrow~~m_1>2m_3+\frac{m_1(m_2+m_3)}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3}$$
Try again. The units don't match.
 
  • #19
Chestermiller said:
Try again. The units don't match.
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_1-a_2 \\ (2)~2T_3+m_2g-T_3=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T_3=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T_3-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$(2)\& (4):~(5)~a_2=\frac{m_3}{m_2}a_3+\left( 1+\frac{m_3}{m_2} \right)g$$
$$(3)\& (4):~(6)~a_3=\left( \frac{m_1}{2m_3}-1 \right)g-\frac{m_1}{2m_3}a_1$$
$$(1)\& (5)\& (6):~(7)~a_1=\left( \frac{m_1m_2+2m_3^2}{m_2(m_1+4m_3)} \right)g+\left( \frac{2m_3}{m_1+4m_3} \right)a_3$$
$$(6)\& (7):~(8)~a_3=\frac{m_1^2-2m_1m_3-10m_3^2-m_1m_2}{4m_3(m_1+2m_3)}$$
For m3 to move up it must be positive, in accordance with my drawing:
$$a_3>0~\rightarrow~m_1^2>2m_1m_3+m_1m_2+10m_3^2$$
 
  • #20
I get $$m_3<\frac{m_1m_2}{(m_1+4m_2)}$$
 
  • #21
$$\left\{\begin{array}{l} (1)~a_3=2a_1-a_2 \\ (2)~2T+m_2g-T=m_2a_2 \\ (3)~m_1g-2T=m_1a_1 \\ (4)~ T-m_3g=m_3a_3 \end{array}\right.$$
$$(1)\& (4):~(5)~~T-m_3g=2m_3a_1-m_3a_2$$
$$(2):~~T=m_2a_2-m_2g,~~(2)\& (5):~(6):~~2a_1=\left( \frac{m_2+m_3}{m_3} \right)a_2-\left( \frac{m_2+m_3}{m_3} \right)g$$
$$(2)\& (4)~:(7)~~a_2=\frac{m_3}{m_2}a_3+\left( 1+\frac{m_3}{m_2} \right)g$$
$$(3)\& (4):~(8)~~a_1=\left( 1-\frac{2m_3}{m_1} \right)g-\frac{2m_3}{m_1}a_3$$
$$(6)\& (7)\& (8):~(9)~~a_3=\frac{m_1m_2-m_1m_3-4m_2m_3}{m_1m_2+m_1m_3+4m_2m_3}g$$
$$a_3>0~\rightarrow~~m_3<\frac{m_1m_2}{m_1+4m_2}$$
Thank you Chestermiller
 
  • #22
Chestermiller said:
Call ##y_1## the distance between the center of the upper pulley and the center of the middle pulley, ##y_2## the distance between the center of the middle pulley and the center of the bottom pulley, and ##y_3## the distance between the center of the middle pulley and mass 3. Then the total length of rope (excluding the parts wrapped on the pulleys, which are constant) is $$L=2y_1+2y_2 +y_3$$ Since the length L is constant, $$2\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+2\frac{d^2y_2}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_3}{dt^2}=0$$In terms of these parameters, $$a_1=\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_2}{dt^2}$$
$$a_2=\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}$$
$$a_3=-\left(\frac{d^2y_1}{dt^2}+\frac{d^2y_3}{dt^2}\right)$$
From these equations, if follows that $$a_3=2a_1-a_2$$

Hello ,

Let y1 be the distance of m1 from fixed pulley , y2 be distance of m2 and y3 be distance of m3 .Let h be fixed distance between m2 and middle pulley .

Since length of string is constant ,

y1 + y1 - y2 - h + y3 - y2 - h + y2 = constant

Differentiating twice I get ,

a3 = a2 - 2a1 . This has sign difference from the result you have obtained . I surely must be making a mistake somewhere .

Could you please tell my error .

Thanks
 
  • #23
Vibhor said:
a3 = a2 - 2a1 . This has sign difference from the result you have obtained .
In the original figure, ##a_3## is defined as positive in the upward direction while ##a_1## and ##a_2## are defined as positive in the downward direction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vibhor
  • #24
Oh !

In that case what I have done is correct assuming downward is positive for all the masses ?
 
  • #25
Vibhor said:
In that case what I have done is correct assuming downward is positive for all the masses ?
Yes. Looks good.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vibhor
  • #26
TSny said:
Yes. Looks good.

Thanks .

You very well know I invariably have a hard time with moving pulleys :biggrin:
 
  • #27
In these types of problems of moving blocks and pulleys , or any other problems ( strings massless and pulley massless , frictionless ) from laws of motion chapter which is covered before rotational mechanics , we assume that pulleys rotate such that strings do not slip .

Suppose the pulley groove is frictionless such that string slips over it , does that change our result ?

I think the results remain same irrespective of whether string slips over the pulley or if pulley rotates along with string .

Am I correct ?

Thanks
 
  • #28
Vibhor said:
I think the results remain same irrespective of whether string slips over the pulley or if pulley rotates along with string .

Am I correct ?
Yes, as long as the pulleys are treated as massless and frictionless when they rotate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vibhor

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K