How Does Friction Affect Acceleration in a Torsional Spring Cylinder System?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the dynamics of a torsional spring cylinder system, emphasizing the relationship between friction and acceleration. The equation Ffriction * R = I * α is used to determine angular acceleration, but questions arise regarding the contribution of friction from the wagon's small wheels to linear acceleration. It is clarified that the wheels can be assumed to have negligible angular inertia and that the system can be considered frictionless for simplification. The initial confusion about the role of the wagon's wheels is resolved, leading to a better understanding of the system's mechanics. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of analyzing friction in rotational systems.
aaaa202
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
2
Consider the system on the attached file. I did an assignment with it, which made me think a lot.
So the spring like thing in the cylinder is a torsional spring, which when released produces a certain torque round the cylinder making it rotate. But that creates a friction and assuming a high enough coefficient of friction it will start to roll. One then had to assume that:
Ffriction * R = I * α (1)
To find the angular acceleration. Writing up the equations for the linear acceleration this was possible to find. However! Is (1) really correct? Because what about the friction in the small wheels of the wagon. Don't their friction also contribute to the linear acceleration of the system yet not the angular?
 

Attachments

  • Unavngivet.png
    Unavngivet.png
    8.9 KB · Views: 430
Physics news on Phys.org
aaaa202 said:
small wheels on wagon. Don't their friction also contribute to the linear acceleration of the system yet not the angular?
I think you're supposed to assume the wheels of the wagon have zero angular inertia, and that the cylinder driven wagon is free of any losses of energy. You could also assume the wagon has no wheels and is frictionless.

aaaa202 said:
Is (1) really correct?
Try to find another equation that relates to friction force.
 
Last edited:
Yes okay, the assignment actually stated that explicitly, but I didn't know how to interpret it. Specifically it said, that the angular intertia was so little it could be neglected. Ahh well. But won't they always contribute with the same force to drive the linear movement as the big, heavy cylinder?
EDIT: No wait, of course they won't - I get it now - ty so much :)
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top