How Does the Angle Between Two Supporting Wires Affect the Tension Force?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coldie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weight Wires
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effect of the angle between two supporting wires on the tension force when holding a 500N weight. When the wires are held straight up, the tension in each is 250N, calculated using the equation 2Ftsin90 - 500 = 0. However, when the wires are angled, the tension force increases significantly, as shown by the equations used for angles of 120 and 170 degrees, leading to tensions of 500N and 2868N, respectively. It is clarified that achieving equilibrium with two horizontal cords is impossible without a vertical component of force to counteract gravity. The conversation highlights the complexity of the problem, revealing that a simple setup can lead to intricate physics concepts.
Coldie
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
If two wires are holding a 500N weight up, will the tension force in each rope be greater if they are both held taught to the side than if they are both simply holding it straight up? For holding it straight up, the tension force is simply 250N in each, derived from 2Ftsin90 - 500 = 0. To find the tension force when they are both held to the side, I wrote 2Ftcos0 - 500 = 0. However, this gets the same result for tension force as the first example. It seems to me that the tension force would be greater when the two wires are held to the side. Could someone explain whether I'm right, and if so, what I'm doing wrong? Interesting sentence there...

[edit]
I think that the second equation is wrong, and the equation should always be the first one. On solving for an angle of 120 between the wires, the equation 2Ftsin30 - 500 = 0 got me 500N for the tension force on each cord. On upping the angle between them to 170, the equation 2Ftsin5 - 500 = 0 gets 2868N! The force seem to approach infinity as the angle between the cords approaches 180. Does this mean that it's impossible to have two cords pulling perfectly horizontally on an object and keeping it at equilibrium?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
"Does this mean that it's impossible to have two cords pulling perfectly horizontally on an object and keeping it at equilibrium?"

That is correct, when the tensile force is regarded as PARALLELL to the orientation of the cord. You need some vertical component of the tensile force in order to achieve equilibrium (i.e, balancing gravity in this case).

Since a horizontal cord doesn't have a non-zero component of tensile force, the ONLY vertical force acting on the object is gravity, i.e, the object is not in equilibrium.
 
Thanks. I didn't expect such a tricky question from such a simple-looking problem. Our teacher's a trickster!
 
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