Masses on strings and pulleys (iWTSE.org)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TomK
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pulleys Strings
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving masses on strings and pulleys, focusing on the acceleration of connected particles and the implications of constraints in a mechanical system. Participants are exploring the relationships between the movements of different points in the system, particularly how the motion of a pulley affects the acceleration of attached masses.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the reasoning behind the acceleration values assigned to different points in the system, particularly the derivation of the value '2' for point P. There are inquiries about the meaning of being 'not accelerating' relative to a global coordinate system and how this relates to the motion of connected particles.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants expressing confusion about the mechanics of the system and the implications of the constraints. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationships between the movements of points A, B, and the pulley, but no consensus has been reached on the underlying principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants are grappling with the complexities of multiple frames of reference and the effects of acceleration in a system involving pulleys and connected masses. There are indications of emotional responses related to self-doubt and the challenges of understanding the problem.

  • #31
Delta2 said:
Equation 2 and 3 of post #25 are wrong according to my opinion. The way you have written them is like you have assumed that the left and right pulleys have zero acceleration. I think the correct equations are:
$$T_2-(m_A+m_B)g=(m_A+m_B)a_L$$
$$T_2-(m_C+m_D)g=(m_C+m_D)a_R$$
where ##a_L,a_R## the accelerations of the left and right pulley respectively, for which we are not given that ##a_L=a_R=0##.

Oh, I assumed ma = 0, since we are told the pulleys are light (negligible mass). If using forces is wrong, I guess it doesn't matter now that it's wrong.

I don't really understand how to solve the problem with kinematics. This problem is a mess.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
TomK said:
Oh, I assumed ma = 0, since we are told the pulleys are light (negligible mass)
Seems to me you got a point here. hmm for the moment i can't resolve this, let me think abit more...
TomK said:
I don't really understand how to solve the problem with kinematics. This problem is a mess
Please read my post #21. @haruspex says that it is correct...
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Delta2 said:
Seems to me you got a point here. hmm for the moment i can't resolve this, let me think abit more...

Please read my post #21. @haruspex says that it is correct...

In post 21, what is this 'superposition principle' you mentioned? How do you know that the 'acceleration of the small pulley relative to big pulley' + 'acceleration of block relative to the small pulley' = 'absolute acceleration of the block'?
 
  • #34
TomK said:
In post 21, what is this 'superposition principle' you mentioned? How do you know that the 'acceleration of the small pulley relative to big pulley' + 'acceleration of block relative to the small pulley' = 'absolute acceleration of the block'?
It's a standard equation of relative motion.
If P moves up a distance yP, and A moves up a distance yAP relative to P (i.e. gets that much closer to P), then A must have moved up the sum of those two distances, yA=yP+yAP.
Differentiating produces a similar statement about relative velocities:
vA=vP+vAP
And again gives accelerations:
aA=aP+aAP.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
  • #35
haruspex said:
It's a standard equation of relative motion.
If P moves up a distance yP, and A moves up a distance yAP relative to P (i.e. gets that much closer to P), then A must have moved up the sum of those two distances, yA=yP+yAP.
Differentiating produces a similar statement about relative velocities:
vA=vP+vAP
And again gives accelerations:
aA=aP+aAP.

That makes sense. I'll try the question again with what you've suggested.
 
  • #36
Lnewqban said:
Did you try a simpler problem among those before attempting solving the one we have been discussing?
This one is basically half as complex and the site shows a detailed solution:
https://i-want-to-study-engineering.org/q/pulley_dynamics_2/

It is important that you can see that both, velocity and acceleration of those pulleys, must be different and the reason behing that fact.
One (top-left) only redirects the tension of the string, while the other (bottom-right) has certain mechanical advantage (whatever it loses in force it gains in displacement and vice-verse).

View attachment 272656
View attachment 272657

View attachment 272658

I managed to do the first pulley question, though I have a question about this second one you have mentioned.

Why do the equations of motion for masses A and B assume the acceleration direction to be down? Why does the answer come out wrong if you assume one mass goes up (for A: T - mg = maA) and the other mass goes down (for B: mg - 2T = maB)?

If you do it with 'T - mg = maA' (for mass A), you get aA = -2g/3.
If you do it with 'mg - T = maA' (for mass A), you get aA = 2g/5 (correct).
 
Last edited:
  • #37
TomK said:
I managed to do the first pulley question, though I have a question about this second one you have mentioned.

Why do the equations of motion for masses A and B assume the acceleration direction to be down? Why does the answer come out wrong if you assume one mass goes up (for A: T - mg = maA) and the other mass goes down (for B: mg - 2T = maB)?

If you do it with 'T - mg = maA' (for mass A), you get aA = -2g/3.
If you do it with 'mg - T = maA' (for mass A), you get aA = 2g/5 (correct).
Both approaches will work, but the kinematic equation relating aA and aB is different. With T - mg = maA and mg - 2T = maB, aA = 2aB; switching A to mg - T = maA makes aA = -2aB.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
  • #38
haruspex said:
Both approaches will work, but the kinematic equation relating aA and aB is different. With T - mg = maA and mg - 2T = maB, aA = 2aB; switching A to mg - T = maA makes aA = -2aB.

I think I get what you're saying, but I'd like to clarify.

If you make the decision that both masses go down, do you then decide to change the sign in front of '2aB', since you know that, in reality, one will go up if the other goes down?

Is the reason for using 'aA = +2aB' when one mass goes up and the other goes down because you have chosen the correct direction in the equations of motion, so there's no need to flip the sign?
 
  • #39
TomK said:
If you make the decision that both masses go down
You don't really decide such a thing in advance. All you decide to do is to select which direction is positive for each displacement/velocity/acceleration/force. Having made those choices, you then write the equations in a consistent manner and the answer pops out. Some variables may come out with positive values, others negative.

In the present case, the choice is positive up for both accelerations or positive up for one and positive down for the other. Flipping the choice for one acceleration flips its sign in all equations in which it appears.
 
  • #40
haruspex said:
You don't really decide such a thing in advance. All you decide to do is to select which direction is positive for each displacement/velocity/acceleration/force. Having made those choices, you then write the equations in a consistent manner and the answer pops out. Some variables may come out with positive values, others negative.

In the present case, the choice is positive up for both accelerations or positive up for one and positive down for the other. Flipping the choice for one acceleration flips its sign in all equations in which it appears.

I was taught to write the equations of motion such that the directions moved by each object would be consistent (e.g. if one goes up, the other goes down). If an acceleration comes out negative for an object, it means that the direction of acceleration you predicted was actually opposite for said-object. I think this method causes problems for me.

Your way seems easier and less prone to mistakes. Is my interpretation below correct?

Assume down is 'positive', therefore up is 'negative'. For an object, any forces pointing down have '+' in-front, whereas forces pointing up have '-' in-front. Solve the simultaneous equations, and the polarity of your acceleration solutions will reveal if the acceleration of each object was in the up or down direction.
 
  • #41
TomK said:
I was taught to write the equations of motion such that the directions moved by each object would be consistent (e.g. if one goes up, the other goes down). If an acceleration comes out negative for an object, it means that the direction of acceleration you predicted was actually opposite for said-object. I think this method causes problems for me.

Your way seems easier and less prone to mistakes. Is my interpretation below correct?

Assume down is 'positive', therefore up is 'negative'. For an object, any forces pointing down have '+' in-front, whereas forces pointing up have '-' in-front. Solve the simultaneous equations, and the polarity of your acceleration solutions will reveal if the acceleration of each object was in the up or down direction.
Yes, those are the two common approaches. Both work as long as you are consistent.
 
  • #42
haruspex said:
Yes, those are the two common approaches. Both work as long as you are consistent.

Thank you. I have now finished all 15 IWTSE problems under the 'contraptions' category.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
  • #43
TomK said:
Thank you. I have now finished all 15 IWTSE problems under the 'contraptions' category.
Great news, Tom! :smile:
Hope that you feel more confident now than when you started this thread.
We all think and understand things in different manners, and it is very important to find out which approach best works for you.
You can do it!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
14K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K