Why Is Tension Equal in a Frictionless and Massless Pulley System?

AI Thread Summary
In a frictionless and massless pulley system, tension is constant throughout the rope, meaning the tension (T) pulling both masses m and M is equal. This equality arises from Newton's third law, where the force exerted by one mass on the other is matched by an equal and opposite force. If the pulley has mass or friction, the tension would differ on either side due to additional forces acting on the system. When mass M is greater than mass m, it will fall, causing mass m to rise, but the tension remains the same. Understanding this concept is crucial for analyzing pulley systems accurately.
jasonpeng
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
I've got a problem with understanding the pulley system.

In a basic pulley, if the force pulling M upwards is T, and the force pulling m upwards is also T, why is it that T is equal for both m & M? For some reason I feel inclined to believe that the T pulling m upwards is equal to the weight of M, and the T pulling M upwards is equal to the weight of m. Is that right or wrong? Why?
pulleyFBD.gif
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe this relates to Newton's third law. If mass m is pulling on mass M with a certain force, M must be pulling on m with the same magnitude since the tension in the rope must be constant (ignoring friction).

Imagine an object hanging from the ceiling. The mass of the object itself would influence the magnitude of the upward force which is being exerted on the mass by the rope (the tension). This is because the magnitude of the force which the mass applies on the ceiling is the same as that which the ceiling applies on the mass. The same should hold true for the pulley (the force which m applies on M is the same magnitude as that which M applies on m).

I hope all of this was both correct and clear.
 
Last edited:
jasonpeng said:
I've got a problem with understanding the pulley system.

In a basic pulley, if the force pulling M upwards is T, and the force pulling m upwards is also T, why is it that T is equal for both m & M? For some reason I feel inclined to believe that the T pulling m upwards is equal to the weight of M, and the T pulling M upwards is equal to the weight of m. Is that right or wrong? Why?
View attachment 205103

If you fixed the top of the string, then you would have equilibrium. The tension on the right would support mass M and the tension on the left would suppose mass m.

However, if the string is not attached to anything (and there is no friction on the pulley), then the tension must be constant throughout. In this case, assuming mass M is larger, it will fall and pull the lower mass m upwards.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
PeroK said:
However, if the string is not attached to anything (and there is no friction on the pulley), then the tension must be constant throughout. In this case, assuming mass M is larger, it will fall and pull the lower mass m upwards.

This is correct, provided that the pulley is massless. If there is mass, and more specifically a mass moment of inertia for the pulley, the tensions will not be equal on both sides.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, person123 and PeroK
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...
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...
Back
Top