What is the new distance between the rope and the Earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Punkyc7
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Rope
AI Thread Summary
When a rope is tightly wrapped around the Earth with a radius of 250,000 units, cutting the rope and adding 3 feet results in a new circumference. The height between the rope and the Earth can be calculated using the formula x = 3/(2π), which gives the height as approximately 0.477 feet. The discussion emphasizes the importance of units in calculations and clarifies that the question pertains to the new radius formed by the rope rather than the space between the rope and the Earth's surface. The algebraic approach is preferred over numerical substitution for clarity and precision in solving the problem. Ultimately, the new rope creates a slight gap above the Earth's surface.
Punkyc7
Messages
415
Reaction score
0
a rope is wrapped tightly around the Earth (radius 250000). The rope is cut and 3 feet are added to it and the ends are reconnected. Again it is wrapped around the earth. How much space is now between the rope and the earth



so C_{0} =2piR

and C=2pi(R+x)

so to find the height is ti 2piR+2pix-2piR=3

so

x=3/2pi
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Punkyc7 said:
a rope is wrapped tightly around the Earth (radius 250000).

250,000 whats?. Furlongs? Units are crucial -- always include them.

Punkyc7 said:
The rope is cut and 3 feet are added to it and the ends are reconnected. Again it is wrapped around the earth. How much space is now between the rope and the earth

I take issue with the phrasing of the question. If the rope is again wrapped around the Earth (i.e. around its surface), then my automatic answer/assumption would be that there is still no space between the rope and the Earth, only now the rope goes around the Earth for slightly more than one full turn.

However, if the question is actually supposed to be, "what is the radius of a circle formed by the new rope, and how much larger is this radius than the radius of the Earth?", then what you have done below looks fine.

Punkyc7 said:
so C_{0} =2piR

and C=2pi(R+x)

so to find the height is ti 2piR+2pix-2piR=3

so

x=3/2pi

No surprise here. Circumference varies linearly with radius, meaning that it is proportional to it, with the constant of proportionality being 2\pi.
 
Punkyc7 said:
a rope is wrapped tightly around the Earth (radius 250000). The rope is cut and 3 feet are added to it and the ends are reconnected. Again it is wrapped around the earth. How much space is now between the rope and the earth

so C_{0} =2piR

and C=2pi(R+x)

so to find the height is ti 2piR+2pix-2piR=3

so

x=3/2pi

Your first job is to compute the circumference given a radius of 250000.

Your second is to compute a new radius given that circumference plus 3.

I'll leave the third step to you.
 
AC130Nav said:
Your first job is to compute the circumference given a radius of 250000.

Your second is to compute a new radius given that circumference plus 3.

I'll leave the third step to you.

Umm...no? He did the algebra and he got the answer. EDIT: he or she

EDIT2: What I'm saying here is that leaving things symbolic is fine. Plugging in numbers for R doesn't gain you anything when you can do algebraic manipulations to solve for the exact quantity you're looking for, and that is what the OP has already done.
 
Could be a trick question.

Due to the potential mass of the rope, if there was ANYWAY that you could add more to it (without it slipping into the ocean), then that length would only allow more lee-way for it to move lower elsewhere.

And when I say elsewhere, I mean, somewhere really close. It would either lower into the nearest soft body or do nothing and fall over aloof.

Anyway, this isn't helping :P.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top