Pulley Question: Accelerating Faster Than G

Thread starter cragar
Start date Jun 2, 2010
Tags

Pulley

AI Thread Summary

Certain pulley systems can achieve accelerations greater than gravitational acceleration (g) by utilizing specific configurations of ropes and weights. While these setups can increase acceleration, they also result in a reduction of the force applied. The mechanics of these systems rely on the principles of tension and force distribution. Understanding the balance between acceleration and force is crucial in designing effective pulley arrangements. Overall, while higher accelerations are possible, they come with trade-offs in force output.

Jun 2, 2010

cragar

I remember my physics teacher saying that there is a setup with ropes and pulley’s and weights which can get you accelerations larger than g does anyone know what this configuration looks like .

Physics news on Phys.org

Jun 2, 2010

pallidin

Acceleration is certainly available in pulley arrangements.
However, and most important, the force will be reduced.

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...

View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

View full post »