How Do You Calculate Acceleration in a Two Mass, Two Pulley System?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PFuser1232
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pulleys Two masses
Click For Summary
In a two mass, two pulley system, the acceleration of mass M1 can be determined using Newton's second law and the relationship between tensions in the strings. The tension T acting on M1 is equal to 2M2g, where M2 is in equilibrium, leading to the equation T - M1g = M1a. The discussion highlights that if 2M2 is greater than M1, M1 accelerates upwards, while if it's less, M1 accelerates downwards; if they are equal, M1 remains stationary. The net force on the second pulley is zero due to its negligible mass, which is crucial for the calculations. The final acceleration equation derived is a = g(2M2 - M1) / (M1 + 4M2), indicating the relationship between the masses and their accelerations.
PFuser1232
Messages
479
Reaction score
20

Homework Statement



Masses ##M_1## and ##M_2## are connected to a system of strings and pulleys as shown (I have attached an image). The strings are massless and inextensible, and the pulleys are massless and frictionless. Find the acceleration of ##M_1##.

Homework Equations



$$\sum_{}^{} F_y = m \ddot{y}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
I think I got the right answer, but I want to know if my reasoning is correct. Now, both strings are massless, so the tension has to be the same throughout (for both strings). If the tension acting on ##M_1## is ##T##, so is the tension acting on the second pulley. The second pulley does not accelerate, therefore the net force on the second pulley must be zero, and so the tension on each side (pulling the pulley down) must be ##\frac{1}{2} T##. ##M_2## is in equilibrium, giving us the equation:
$$\frac{1}{2} T = M_2 g$$
$$T = 2 M_2 g$$
Now, applying Newton's second law to ##M_1##:
$$T - M_1 g = M_1 \ddot{y}$$
$$2M_2 g - M_1 g = M_1 \ddot{y}$$
$$\ddot{y} = \frac{g(2M_2 - M_1)}{M_1}$$
I have two questions:
1) Why exactly is the net force on the second pulley zero? Is it because the setup makes it impossible for the pulley to accelerate? Or is it because its mass is negligible?
2) The equation for acceleration tells us that if ##2M_2 > M_1##, ##M_1## will accelerate upwards. If ##2M_2 < M_1##, ##M_1## will accelerate downwards. If ##M_1 = 2M_2##, ##M_1## does not accelerate. If ##M_1## accelerates while the string is taut, doesn't this mean the second pulley should accelerate? And if the second pulley accelerates, doesn't this mean ##M_2## should accelerate? This contradicts my first equation, ##T = 2 M_2 g##.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    13 KB · Views: 730
Physics news on Phys.org
MohammedRady97 said:

Homework Statement



Masses ##M_1## and ##M_2## are connected to a system of strings and pulleys as shown (I have attached an image). The strings are massless and inextensible, and the pulleys are massless and frictionless. Find the acceleration of ##M_1##.

Homework Equations


$$\sum_{}^{} F_y = m \ddot{y}$$

The Attempt at a Solution


I think I got the right answer, but I want to know if my reasoning is correct. Now, both strings are massless, so the tension has to be the same throughout (for both strings). If the tension acting on ##M_1## is ##T##, so is the tension acting on the second pulley. The second pulley does not accelerate, therefore the net force on the second pulley must be zero, and so the tension on each side (pulling the pulley down) must be ##\frac{1}{2} T##. ##M_2## is in equilibrium, giving us the equation:
$$\frac{1}{2} T = M_2 g$$
$$T = 2 M_2 g$$
Now, applying Newton's second law to ##M_1##:
$$T - M_1 g = M_1 \ddot{y}$$
$$2M_2 g - M_1 g = M_1 \ddot{y}$$
$$\ddot{y} = \frac{g(2M_2 - M_1)}{M_1}$$
I have two questions:
1) Why exactly is the net force on the second pulley zero? Is it because the setup makes it impossible for the pulley to accelerate? Or is it because its mass is negligible?
2) The equation for acceleration tells us that if ##2M_2 > M_1##, ##M_1## will accelerate upwards. If ##2M_2 < M_1##, ##M_1## will accelerate downwards. If ##M_1 = 2M_2##, ##M_1## does not accelerate. If ##M_1## accelerates while the string is taut, doesn't this mean the second pulley should accelerate? And if the second pulley accelerates, doesn't this mean ##M_2## should accelerate? This contradicts my first equation, ##T = 2 M_2 g##.
I see no attached image !
 
SammyS said:
I see no attached image !
Oops! Sorry, I forgot to attach the image.
Anyway, I just attached the screenshot to the original post.
 
MohammedRady97 said:
...

I have two questions:
1) Why exactly is the net force on the second pulley zero? Is it because the setup makes it impossible for the pulley to accelerate? Or is it because its mass is negligible?
2) The equation for acceleration tells us that if ##2M_2 > M_1##, ##M_1## will accelerate upwards. If ##2M_2 < M_1##, ##M_1## will accelerate downwards. If ##M_1 = 2M_2##, ##M_1## does not accelerate. If ##M_1## accelerates while the string is taut, doesn't this mean the second pulley should accelerate? And if the second pulley accelerates, doesn't this mean ##M_2## should accelerate? This contradicts my first equation, ##T = 2 M_2 g##.
Yes, the net force on the lower pulley is zero, because its mass is negligible.

String 1 does not necessarily have the same tension as string 2.
 
Update:
Okay, so I think I realized where I went wrong. This time, I considered the acceleration of the lower pulley (which is massless), trying to dodge division by zero wherever I can.
My inertial coordinate system is fixed to the ground, with the ##\hat{\jmath}## unit vector pointing upwards.
The positions of ##M_1##, ##M_2##, and ##M_p## (second pulley) are ##y_1##, ##y_2##, and ##y_p## respectively. Since the upper pulley is not accelerating, it can be considered as an Atwood machine with ##\ddot{y}_1 = -\ddot{y}_p##. Now, for the second pulley, we have the constraint:
$$l = y_p + \pi R_p + (y_p - y_2)$$
Where ##l## is the length of the string (which is constant, since the string is inextensible) and ##R_p## is the radius of the pulley. Differentiating twice with respect to time we get:
$$\ddot{y}_2 = 2 \ddot{y}_p$$
Applying Newton's second law to the pulley:
$$T - M_p g - 2T' = M_p \ddot{y}_p$$
##M_p = 0##, therefore:
$$T' = \frac{1}{2} T$$
Where ##T'## is the tension in the lower string.
Applying Newton's second law to ##M_2##:
$$\frac{1}{2} T - M_2 g = M_2 \ddot{y}_2 = 2 M_2 \ddot{y}_p = -2 M_2 \ddot{y}_1$$
$$T - 2M_2g = -4 M_2 \ddot{y}_1$$
Applying Newton's second law to ##M_1##:
$$T - M_1 g = M_1 \ddot{y}_1$$
Combining the two equations:
$$\ddot{y}_1 = \frac{g(2M_2 - M_1)}{M_1 + 4M_2}$$
Is this correct?
 
MohammedRady97 said:
Update:
Okay, so I think I realized where I went wrong. This time, I considered the acceleration of the lower pulley (which is massless), trying to dodge division by zero wherever I can.
My inertial coordinate system is fixed to the ground, with the ##\hat{\jmath}## unit vector pointing upwards.
The positions of ##M_1##, ##M_2##, and ##M_p## (second pulley) are ##y_1##, ##y_2##, and ##y_p## respectively. Since the upper pulley is not accelerating, it can be considered as an Atwood machine with ##\ddot{y}_1 = -\ddot{y}_p##. Now, for the second pulley, we have the constraint:
$$l = y_p + \pi R_p + (y_p - y_2)$$
Where ##l## is the length of the string (which is constant, since the string is inextensible) and ##R_p## is the radius of the pulley. Differentiating twice with respect to time we get:
$$\ddot{y}_2 = 2 \ddot{y}_p$$
Applying Newton's second law to the pulley:
$$T - M_p g - 2T' = M_p \ddot{y}_p$$
##M_p = 0##, therefore:
$$T' = \frac{1}{2} T$$
Where ##T'## is the tension in the lower string.
Applying Newton's second law to ##M_2##:
$$\frac{1}{2} T - M_2 g = M_2 \ddot{y}_2 = 2 M_2 \ddot{y}_p = -2 M_2 \ddot{y}_1$$
$$T - 2M_2g = -4 M_2 \ddot{y}_1$$
Applying Newton's second law to ##M_1##:
$$T - M_1 g = M_1 \ddot{y}_1$$
Combining the two equations:
$$\ddot{y}_1 = \frac{g(2M_2 - M_1)}{M_1 + 4M_2}$$
Is this correct?
That looks good to me.

I read it fairly carefully, but didn't verify each and every detail.
 
  • Like
Likes PFuser1232
SammyS said:
That looks good to me.

I read it fairly carefully, but didn't verify each and every detail.

Those Kleppner and Kolenkow questions are great!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
4K