Pulley Tension Problem: How Much Force to Pull Up?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pulley Tension
AI Thread Summary
To pull himself up at a constant velocity, the man must exert a force equal to half his weight, which is 465N, due to the tension being distributed equally on both sides of the rope. When accelerating upwards at 1.3 m/s², he needs to pull with a force of 585N, calculated by adding the force required for acceleration to his weight. If the man lets go of the rope, he experiences a downward force of 931N, as there would be no tension. The discussion also touches on how the scenario changes if another person holds the rope, turning it into a standard pulley problem where tension equals weight. Overall, understanding the distribution of forces and tensions is crucial for solving these pulley-related problems.
Phan
Messages
32
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A man sitting in a bosun's chair that dangles from a massless rope, which runs over a massless, frictionless pulley, and back down to the man's hand, wants to pull himself up. The mass of the man and the chair combined is 95kg, with what force magnitude must the man pull on the rope if he wants to:
a] move up at a constant velocity
b] move up at 1.3m/s^2


Homework Equations


Irrelevant at the moment.


The Attempt at a Solution


I think I have found out the answer or the key to solving this problem, but there are still several points that I don't understand. I know that since the man is holding on to the rope, there must be two tensions of equal magnitudes on each side, I call that T1 & T1. Using this, I did

2T1 - mg = ma = 0

My question is, how would this change if the man was no longer holding on to the rope? I'm slightly confused, as I know that if the man let's go, he would experience mg down, since there is no longer any tension in the rope, so he would have a downward force of 931N.
So using this, if we go back to him holding the rope, is it simply because that there are two tensions, that this total force is divided in half for each side for him to be in equilibrium? Is this the right way of thinking?

Part C also asks to find the same things if a man at the bottom were to hold the rope. Am I correct in assuming that this will turn it into a normal pulley problem where for the bosun side:
T1-mg= 0?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Phan said:
I think I have found out the answer or the key to solving this problem, but there are still several points that I don't understand. I know that since the man is holding on to the rope, there must be two tensions of equal magnitudes on each side, I call that T1 & T1. Using this, I did

2T1 - mg = ma = 0

So using this, if we go back to him holding the rope, is it simply because that there are two tensions, that this total force is divided in half for each side for him to be in equilibrium? Is this the right way of thinking?

Part C also asks to find the same things if a man at the bottom were to hold the rope. Am I correct in assuming that this will turn it into a normal pulley problem where for the bosun side:
T1-mg= 0?

Hi Phan! :smile:

Yes that's all correct!

"the right way of thinking"?

You can think of it any way you like, so long as it's consistent with the equations.

One way is to think of it as gearing, and to look at the work done (which is the same as energy gained) …

in the first case, pulling the rope one metre only lifts the chair half a metre … so the gearing is 2 (or is it 1/2? … i can't remember which way round it is :redface:) … the "h" in the PE changes only half as fast as the "d" in the F.d = work done, so the F must be twice as much. :smile:
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...

Similar threads

Back
Top