Scarf modelled as a pulley system / F=ma exercise

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the proportion of a scarf modeled as a pulley system, specifically the ratio m1/(m1+m2). The original poster questions why this ratio behaves counterintuitively when comparing the masses m1 and m2. It is clarified that the ratio represents the proportion of the scarf hanging over the edge, which is expected to be large when m1 is significantly greater than m2. The conversation highlights that the ratio cannot exceed 1, and thus cannot be "really big" in an absolute sense. Overall, the misunderstanding lies in the intuitive expectations of the ratio's behavior in relation to the masses involved.
laser
Messages
104
Reaction score
17
Homework Statement
Consider a scarf draped over a table. Model it as two particles of mass m1 and m2 joined by a model string passing over the edges of the table modelled as a model pulley. Assume the masses are proportional to the corresponding lengths of the scarf, i.e. the scarf’s mass is uniformly distributed. If the coefficient of static friction between the scarf and the table surface is μ, what proportion of the scarf can hang over the table before the scarf slips off the table?
Relevant Equations
F=ma
1701010123507.png


My teacher gave the above answer as a solution. However, I am not convinced that the proportion is really $$\frac{m_1}{m_1+m2}$$. If m2 << m1the proportion would be really big, right? But intuition tells me that it should be the opposite. Furthermore, if m2 >> m1, then one would expect the proportion to be "big". But it's the opposite :/.

What am I missing here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The ratio ##m_1/(m_1+m_2)## is by definition the proportion of the scarf hanging over the edge. Since ##m_1## is the mass hanging over the edge, this should be expected to be large whenever ##m_1 \gg m_2##.
 
laser said:
If m2 << m1the proportion would be really big, right? But intuition tells me that it should be the opposite. Furthermore, if m2 >> m1, then one would expect the proportion to be "big". But it's the opposite :/.
Intuition is telling you the same thing for both m2>>m1 and m2<<m1, yet is wrong both times? That does not sound possible.
Besides, it can never be "really big". It clearly cannot exceed 1.
 
haruspex said:
Besides, it can never be "really big". It clearly cannot exceed 1.
I’d say 1 is a “really big” fraction of the scarf … it is all of it … 🤔
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top