Questions on Mechanics: Why is Tension at End of Whirling Rope Zero?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of tension at the end of a whirling rope, which is argued to be zero because the end is free and has no additional mass to exert tension. As the distance from the end of the rope approaches zero, the mass of the segment also approaches zero, leading to the conclusion that tension must also approach zero unless infinite acceleration is applied. The tension at any point along the rope depends on the mass of the segment between that point and the free end. This understanding clarifies why the tension diminishes as one moves toward the end of the rope. The explanation highlights the relationship between mass, acceleration, and tension in the context of rotational mechanics.
benf.stokes
Messages
67
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In one of the examples of "An Introduction to Mechanics" he argues that the tension at the end of a whirling rope must be zero as the end is free.

I just don't understand how this can be.
Below is the example
Kleppner1.jpg

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
is he talking about a length or rope being rotated as a straight line or where the rope is in a sine wave?
 
never mind, I see it now.
the end of the rope has no further mass beyond it or no more rope to provide the tension from the rotational acceleration, at any point r between the ends the tension will be based on the delta from r to the free end and the fixed end.
 
I'm sorry but could you please explain better?
 
Sounds like you've reached the end of your rope...

Well if there's nothing beyond the end then how can there be any tension on it?
 
The tension at a distance x from the end of the rope acts on the segment of the rope between the end and distance x.

If the mass of this segment of the rope is m_x and the tension is T_x, then T_x=m_xa_x, where a_x is the acceleration of this segment of the rope.

Since m_x\rightarrow 0 as x\rightarrow 0, then unless the end of the rope is subject to infinite acceleration we must also have T_x\rightarrow 0 as x\rightarrow 0.
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...

Similar threads

Back
Top