How Is the Accelerating Force Resolved at the Axle of a Wheel?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on resolving the accelerating force at the axle of a wheel, where a tangential force acts on a massless wheel with a concentrated mass at the axle. It is noted that two equal but opposite forces create a torque at the surface, while the rolling friction force prevents slipping. The key point is that the force at the axle is effectively doubled due to the lever principle, leading to an acceleration of 2F/m. The inertia of the mass acts as a reaction force, and the point of contact with the ground is treated as an instantaneous lever. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these dynamics through practical experimentation and conceptual models.
Eugbug
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
In the diagram attached, a force acts tangentially on the edge of a wheel. To make things easier, the wheel is massless, so moment of inertia doesn't need to be taken into account. However there is a concentrated mass M at the axle(It could be taken as the mass of the axle). Two equal but opposite forces can be introduced at the point of contact with the surface without changing the situation. This then results in a couple whose magnitude is the torque T and also a force F at the surface. The reaction to the force F is the rolling friction force Rf which prevents the wheel from slipping.
How can an accelerating force be resolved at the axle? Do I split the torque T up again into forces? I'm going around in circles thinking about this and it's doing my head in!
 

Attachments

  • wheelforce.jpg
    wheelforce.jpg
    8.9 KB · Views: 627
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I can see why you'd have trouble - torque won't help you because the mass is not distributed.
To use this description, you want to think in terms of levers. If you apply a force twice as far from the fulcrum as the mass, what is the acceleration of the mass?
 
Simon Bridge said:
I can see why you'd have trouble - torque won't help you because the mass is not distributed.
To use this description, you want to think in terms of levers. If you apply a force twice as far from the fulcrum as the mass, what is the acceleration of the mass?

Well the force at the axle is 2F since the clockwise moment = the anticlockwise moment. So the acceleration is 2F/m. There is no torsion reaction force at the point of contact between the wheel and ground since the "lever" is free to move. So the reaction is simply the inertia of the mass. Inertia can be thought of as a reaction, can't it? (Here I go splitting hairs again!)
 
Last edited:
In the reference frame of the ground - the point of contact is stationary for an instant. Thus it is a common model to treat it as an instantaneous lever with the fulcrum in the ground.

Same reference frame:
The top point moves twice the instantaneous speed of the center - it got to that speed in the same time.

Consider - the force is being provided by someone pulling on a (very thin) string that is wrapped around the rim of the wheel. If the unrolled length of string increases by length L, the center of the wheel has moved a distance ...

... you can actually conduct an experiment and check if you still doubt this approach.

Note:
Objects are usually considered to have inertia whether they are reacting to something or not.
I think it's a philosophical position to do with the independence of reality from perception... there's a different forum for that sort of discussion though.
 
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