Transfer of forces from a pulley to a beam

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 5K views
MartinLoland
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I am trying to understand how forces transfer from a wheel / pulley onto a beam, and then calculating the resulting moment. The image describe the problem.

trinser.png

The rope is in tension with force "S", the wheel/pulley can rotate freely without any friction.

Homework Equations


[/B]
M = force*distance

The Attempt at a Solution


Method 1: If we look at the global system it should be ok to use the force*distance to find the resulting moment M.

Method 2: If we first calculate the forces acting between the pulley and the beam and then isolate the beam we should be able to find the moment.

I thought method two would be right because the pulley don't transfer moment, but then again we should also be able to look at it as a global system. Which one is correct and why doesn't the other one work? Thanks :)
 
on Phys.org
BvU said:
Have you shown that the two methods are really different ?
Do you let the two S act at the correct point in method 2 ?
In theory the two methods shouldn't produce any differences. But if we look at the pulley as a isolated system and find the x and y forces acting in the bearing we are only left with M, but since the two S are producing the same moment with equal distance r my understanding is that M=0 in the bearing. Since the beam and pulley are connected in the frictionless bearing a can only see that the x and y component described in the picture are transferred to the beam.

When you say
Do you let the two S act at the correct point in method 2 ?
Hmm, I can't see how I should set the forces differently
 
MartinLoland said:
Hmm, I can't see how I should set the forces differently
Simple case ##\theta = \pi/2##. You let the horizontal S act at the height of the beam instead of (idem + r) and the vertical S at the end of the beam instead of (idem + r) -- but I do see the additional moments cancel, so perhaps that's what you mean ?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MartinLoland
BvU said:
but I do see the additional moments cancel, so perhaps that's what you mean ?
Yes, if you use method 2 the moment cancels out in the pulley so you are left with a smaller M than what you get with method 1. Is it wrong to do a global analysis as in method 1 when you have freely rotating wheels in that system?

Another way of stating the problem: Is the reaction moment force M at the end of the beam dependent on the radius of the pulley r?
 
MartinLoland said:
Is the reaction moment force M at the end of the beam dependent on the radius of the pulley r?
So my reasoning yields answer: no.

Now we want to show that method 1 gives the same moment as method 2 ...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MartinLoland
BvU said:
So my reasoning yields answer: no.

Now we want to show that method 1 gives the same moment as method 2 ...
Hmm, I have no idea why my earlier results yielded different numbers. Some times all you need is someone looking over your shoulder, thank you for your patience!
 
MartinLoland said:
Hmm, I have no idea why my earlier results yielded different numbers
Different numbers or different-looking equations?
Your two equations involve l, r, c and theta, but from the geometry there is a relationship between those variables, so it is not apparent whether they are actually the same. Figure out the relationship and substitute for c in method 1.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MartinLoland
haruspex said:
Different numbers or different-looking equations?
Your two equations involve l, r, c and theta, but from the geometry there is a relationship between those variables, so it is not apparent whether they are actually the same. Figure out the relationship and substitute for c in method 1.
Yes thanks. When I worked through it earlier I got different numbers. But working it out once more I found that the r cancels out when using method 1.
So it all makes sense now :)