Tension in Rope Wrapped Around a Rod

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poetria
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rod Rope Tension
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves analyzing the dynamics of two masses connected by a rope wrapped around a rod, specifically focusing on the acceleration of the masses when the rope begins to slip. The context includes concepts of tension, friction, and the Capstan equation.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between tensions T_A and T_B, and how they relate to the acceleration of the masses. There are attempts to incorporate the effects of friction and the moment of inertia. Questions arise regarding the assumptions about the connection between the masses and their accelerations.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered insights into the relationships between the variables, while others express confusion about the underlying assumptions and the implications of the equations presented. There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions of acceleration for the two masses.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the masses are connected by a rope, which influences their motion. There is a discussion about the nature of the forces acting on each mass and how they relate to each other, particularly in terms of directionality and the definitions of positive and negative acceleration.

Poetria
Messages
267
Reaction score
42

Homework Statement



I solved the first part of the problem correctly. Here there is the second part:
assume that m1 is large enough so that the rope starts to slip and the masses start to move. What is a, the magnitude of the acceleration of the masses after sliding has begun?

Hint: Just when the masses start moving, the relationship between T_A

and T_B becomes T_B=T_A*e^(-mu_k*pi), where mu static is replaced by mu kinetic.

m_1>m_2
theta = pi

Homework Equations



I guess I have include the friction force and use the Capstan equation to do so but I am lost.

The Attempt at a Solution



T_1>T_2
T_1 = T_A (from the first part)
T_1 = T_2 + F_f (friction on the contact surface)

m_1*g-T_A=m_1*a_1
T_B-m_2*g = m_2*a_2

I tried to experiment with the moment of inertia but it wasn't covered in the course. Any hint what to do next? I am still left with T_A, when I try to calculate acceleration.
 

Attachments

  • Tension_in_a_rope.jpg
    Tension_in_a_rope.jpg
    11.5 KB · Views: 885
Physics news on Phys.org
Poetria said:
I am still left with T_A, when I try to calculate acceleration.
I don't see how. You know the relationship between TA and TB, and the relationship between a1 and a2. Four equations, four unknowns.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
I see.
Is this correct:

for T_A:

m_1*g-T_A=T_A*e^(-mu_k*pi)-m_2*g

since m_1*a_1=m_2*a_2

finally I got:
T_A=(g*m_1+m_2)/(1+e^(-mu_k*pi))a*(m_1+m_2)= m_1*a_1-m_2*a_2

The right side:
T_A-m_1*g-T_B+m_2*g = T_A*(1-e^(-mu_k*pi))+g*(m_2-m_1)

So
a = ((g*(m_1+m_2)/(1+e^(-mu_k*pi)))*(1-e^(-mu_k*pi))+g*(m_2-m_1))/(m_1+m_2)

It looks complicated.
 
Poetria said:
since m_1*a_1=m_2*a_2
Um, why?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
haruspex said:
Um, why?

I thought this is because mass 1 and mass 2 are connected.
 
Poetria said:
I thought this is because mass 1 and mass 2 are connected.
Yes, but by what, exactly?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
haruspex said:
Yes, but by what, exactly?

By a rope of course. I thought net force for 1 should be equal in magnitude to net force for 2. I guess I don't understand it. :(
 
Poetria said:
By a rope of course.
Right, not a length of elastic.
 
haruspex said:
Right, not a length of elastic.

Yes, It won't stretch. It is just like taking derivatives of the length of a rope. Acceleration is its second derivative.
So is just a_1=a_2?
 
  • #10
Poetria said:
Yes, It won't stretch. It is just like taking derivatives of the length of a rope. Acceleration is its second derivative.
So is just a_1=a_2?
Right.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Poetria
  • #11
haruspex said:
Right.

Thanks. I got the right answer. Phew.
 
  • #12
haruspex said:
Right.
It should be (a_1 = - a_2). Correct me if i am wrong.
 
  • #13
swaqqiali said:
It should be (a_1 = - a_2). Correct me if i am wrong.
If you look at the equations in post #1 you will see that a1 is being defined as positive down while a2 is defined as positive up. a1=a2.
 
  • #14
haruspex said:
If you look at the equations in post #1 you will see that a1 is being defined as positive down while a2 is defined as positive up. a1=a2.
yes, i missed that, thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K