Pulleys with inertia and friction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the mass of m1 required to accelerate m2 upward at 1g while considering the effects of friction and inertia in pulleys. The participants derive equations for the tensions T1 and T2 in terms of known variables, addressing the torque and linear momentum relationships. They clarify that both torque and linear equations are valid and discuss the implications of pulley inertia, noting that pulley 2 has a greater impact due to its rotational speed and mechanical advantage. The final equation reflects the contributions of mass, friction, and inertia, confirming the understanding of energy dynamics in the system. The conversation concludes with a consensus on the correctness of the derived equations and their physical interpretations.
johnschmidt
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



http://essbaum.com/images/Pulley_diagram.png

We have a bonus question where we are asked to find the mass of ##m_{1}## necessary to accelerate ##m_{2}## upward at ##1g##, and we have to include friction in the pulley bearings as well as the pulley inertias. The pulleys are flat disks, and the rope doesn't have mass or stretch.

##m_{2}## = 1kg
##a_{2}## = 1g (positive is upward)
##r_{p1}## (radius of pulley 1) = 10cm
##m_{p1}## (mass of pulley 1) = 1kg
##\tau_{frictionofp1}## (friction torque of pulley 1 bearing) = 0.4Nm
##r_{p2}## (radius of pulley 2) = 20cm
##m_{p2}## (mass of pulley 2) = 2kg
##\tau_{frictionofp2}## (friction torque of pulley 2 bearing) = 0.6Nm

Homework Equations



Torque ##\tau_{3}## is associated with tension ##T_{3}## and torque ##\tau_{2}## is associated with tension ##T_{2}##
##I## = moment of inertia
##\alpha## = angular acceleration

The Attempt at a Solution



First I solve the torques of pulley 2:

##\tau_{2} - \tau_{3} = I_{p2} \alpha_{p2} + \tau_{friction of p2}##
##T_{2} r_{p2} - T_{3} r_{p2} = \frac{m_{p2} r_{p2}^2}{2} \frac{a_{2}}{r_{p2}} + \tau_{frictionofp2}##
##T_{2} - T_{3} = \frac{m_{p2} a{2}}{2} + \tau_{frictionofp2}##

Now solve for ##T_{3}##

##T_{3} = m_{2} g + m_{2} a_{2}##

Substituting ##T_{3}## into the previous equation gives

##T_{2} - m_{2} g - m_{2} a_{2} = \frac{m_{p2} a{2}}{2} + \tau_{frictionofp2}##

Solve for ##T_{2}##

##T_{2} = m_{2} g + m_{2} a_{2} + \frac{m_{p2} a{2}}{2} + \tau_{frictionofp2}##

Great! Now I have ##T_{2}## in terms of known variables.

But now I get stuck. How do I proceed with pulley 1? I can follow the same procedure as above and find the difference between ##T_{1}## and ##T_{2}##, but that seems to neglect that pulley 1 is in motion downward.

Similarly if I solve for the forces on pulley 1 (for example ##T_{1} + T_{2} = \left(m_{1} + m_{p1}\right) g - \left(m_{1} + m_{p1}\right) a_{1}## then I am ignoring the forces that go into rotating the inertia of pulley 1...

?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
johnschmidt said:
##T_{2} - T_{3} = \frac{m_{p2} a{2}}{2} + \tau_{frictionofp2}##
Shouldn't there be a denominator 1/rp2 in the last term?
How do I proceed with pulley 1? I can follow the same procedure as above and find the difference between ##T_{1}## and ##T_{2}##, but that seems to neglect that pulley 1 is in motion downward.

Similarly if I solve for the forces on pulley 1 (for example ##T_{1} + T_{2} = \left(m_{1} + m_{p1}\right) g - \left(m_{1} + m_{p1}\right) a_{1}## then I am ignoring the forces that go into rotating the inertia of pulley 1...

?
Both equations are valid. Taking moments about the centre of pulley 1 gives you the torque equation, T1 and T2 acting oppositely, while linear momentum gives an equation with T1 and T2 acting together. Do you think that gives you too many equations?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
haruspex said:
Shouldn't there be a denominator 1/rp2 in the last term?

Yes! Good catch.

Both equations are valid. Taking moments about the centre of pulley 1 gives you the torque equation, T1 and T2 acting oppositely, while linear momentum gives an equation with T1 and T2 acting together. Do you think that gives you too many equations?

I guess one shouldn't complain about having too many equations ;-)

Ok, then let's solve for T1 in terms of T2.

##\tau_{1} - \tau_{2} = I_{p1} \alpha_{p1} + \tau_{friction of p1}##
##T_{1} r_{p1} - T_{2} r_{p1} = \frac{m_{p1} r_{p1}^2}{2} \frac{a_{1}}{r_{p1}} + \tau_{frictionofp1}##
##T_{1} - T_{2} = \frac{m_{p1} a_{1}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}}##

Solve for ##T_{1}##

##T_{1} = T_{2} + \frac{m_{p1} a_{1}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}}##

Insert ##T_{2}##

##T_{1} = m_{2} g + m_{2} a_{2} + \frac{m_{p2} a_{2}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp2}}{r_{p2}} + \frac{m_{p1} a_{1}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}}##

Now I also know that ##T_{1} + T_{2} = \left(m_{1} + m_{p1}\right) g - \left(m_{1} + m_{p1}\right) a_{1}##

Solve for ##m_{1}##

##m_{1} = \frac{T_{1} + T_{2}}{g - a_{1}} - m_{p1}##

Insert ##T_{1}## and ##T_{2}##

##m_{1} = \frac{m_{2} g + m_{2} a_{2} + \frac{m_{p2} a_{2}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp2}}{r_{p2}} + \frac{m_{p1} a_{1}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}} + m_{2} g + m_{2} a_{2} + \frac{m_{p2} a_{2}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp2}}{r_{p2}}}{g - a_{1}} - m_{p1}##

Simplify a bit

##m_{1} = \frac{2 m_{2} g + 2 m_{2} a_{2} + m_{p2} a_{2} + \frac{2 \tau_{frictionofp2}}{r_{p2}} + \frac{m_{p1} a_{1}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}}}{g - a_{1}} - m_{p1}##

I also know that ##a_{1} = \frac{a_{2}}{2}## and can insert that in

##m_{1} = \frac{2 m_{2} g + 2 m_{2} a_{2} + m_{p2} a_{2} + \frac{2 \tau_{frictionofp2}}{r_{p2}} + \frac{m_{p1} \frac{a_{2}}{2}}{2} + \frac{\tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}}}{g - \frac{a_{2}}{2}} - m_{p1}##

Simplify some more

##m_{1} = \frac{4 m_{2} \left(g + a_{2}\right) + 2 m_{p2} a_{2} + \frac{4 \tau_{frictionofp2}}{r_{p2}} + \frac{m_{p1} a_{2}}{2} + \frac{2 \tau_{frictionofp1}}{r_{p1}}}{2g - a_{2}} - m_{p1}##

Is that right?

It seems to make sense, in that if I zero the mass and friction of the pulleys I get the same equation we had to solve for in another exercise where the pulleys had no mass or friction. And it makes sense that the friction of pulley 2 matters double versus the friction of pulley 1 because of the multiplying effect of pulley 1. But is it right that the inertia of pulley 2 matters 4 times as much as the inertia of pulley 1?
 
johnschmidt said:
is it right that the inertia of pulley 2 matters 4 times as much as the inertia of pulley 1?
Yes. P2 rotates twice as fast as P1, so exerts twice the retardation. But it also has a 2:1 mechanical advantage. Another way to think of it is the P2 rotating twice as fast will gain 4 times the energy.
I agree with you final equation.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
haruspex said:
Yes. P2 rotates twice as fast as P1, so exerts twice the retardation. But it also has a 2:1 mechanical advantage. Another way to think of it is the P2 rotating twice as fast will gain 4 times the energy.
I agree with you final equation.

Ok, I think I understand. This is like where energy is a function of velocity squared, right?

Thanks haruspex!
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top