What is the tension in a rope when a monkey accelerates up?

[haruspex]

In post#24 in diagram we can see T is upwards , downwards, acting on the rope , is the force that stretch the rope as you said. So all these are tension.
And in your post #21 you write $T=F_{MR}$. Then you write $T=F_{MR}=-F_{RM}$. Is this because you took Tension to be the force the monkey applies. And we can also write $T=-F_{MR}=F_{RM}$ taking T as the force the rope applies.

Yes.

I took up as +ve every time.

No you didn't. In post #28 you wrote $F_{MR}=mg$. By convention, g is always positive, so with up positive, weight is -mg. So it becomes $F_{MR}=-mg$.

 

[rudransh verma]

ctually down) you would write:
T=FMR=−FRM and

Isn't this should be $T=−F_{MR}=F_{RM}$ taking T as the force applied on rope(taking up as +ve)?

 

[rudransh verma]

No you didn't. In post #28 you wrote FMR=mg. By convention, g is always positive, so with up positive, weight is -mg. So it becomes FMR=−mg.

I used Newtons second law wrongly. I had taken the forces from different bodies when it has to be one body. We cannot apply this law here. I got you. You are merely stating the value of $F_{MR}$ as $-mg$ only. Right?
I edited the post.

 

[haruspex]

Isn't this should be $T=−F_{MR}=F_{RM}$ taking T as the force applied on rope(taking up as +ve)?

If I understand your notation, $F_{MR}$ means the force the monkey exerts on the rope. Taking T as the force applied on rope, necessarily, $T=F_{MR}$, regardless of sign convention.

 

[rudransh verma]

If I understand your notation, $F_{MR}$ means the force the monkey exerts on the rope. Taking T as the force applied on rope, necessarily, $T=F_{MR}$, regardless of sign convention.

Yeah! but T as vector is $-F_{MR}$. Right?

 

[vcsharp2003]

If I understand your notation, $F_{MR}$ means the force the monkey exerts on the rope. Taking T as the force applied on rope, necessarily, $T=F_{MR}$, regardless of sign convention.

How about the static friction force acting upwards on the monkey's hands/legs from the rope's surface as it climbs up the rope? The rope and monkey's hands interface cannot be smooth else monkey would slip down as it tried to climb up.

Or we are already considering this friction force when we say force exerted by the rope on the monkey? How is tension in rope related to this frictional force? Probably equal since rope is stationary as monkey climbs up.

 

[Steve4Physics]

How about the static friction force acting upwards on the monkey's hands/legs from the rope's surface as it climbs up the rope? The rope and monkey's hands interface cannot be smooth else monkey would slip down as it tried to climb up.

Or we are already considering this friction force when we say force exerted by the rope on the monkey? How is tension in rope related to this frictional force? Probably equal since rope is stationary as monkey climbs up.

I previously (Post #18) pointed out the role of friction, but no one seems to want to refer to friction!

 

[rudransh verma]

@Steve4Physics (taking up as +ve)
1. If tension is the pair of forces which stretch the rope then why do we show in diagrams the tension inwards?

2. Tension is the force applied by monkey on rope. It is pair of outward forces. Magnitude wise $T=F_{MR}$. But vectorially $-T=-F_{MR}$.
Can I say $T=F_{RM}$?

3. What is the meaning of each?
$-T=-F_{MR}$.
$T=-F_{MR}$.
$-T=F_{MR}$.
$T=F_{MR}$.

 

[vcsharp2003]

With this view, the tension doesn’t directly act on the monkey, so it should not be shown on the monkey's FBD.

Very true.

If we look at the monkey as the isolated system in our free body diagram, then surely it's the friction force from rope that's acting on the monkey and the tension force in the rope is not acting directly on the monkey. We shouldn't be caring about the tension force in our free body diagram.

 

[haruspex]

How about the static friction force acting upwards on the monkey's hands/legs from the rope's surface as it climbs up the rope? The rope and monkey's hands interface cannot be smooth else monkey would slip down as it tried to climb up.

Or we are already considering this friction force when we say force exerted by the rope on the monkey? How is tension in rope related to this frictional force? Probably equal since rope is stationary as monkey climbs up.

I don't see that how the monkey is attached to the rope is of any interest. Could be friction, could be the rope is tied around the monkey (do we need to get into how the friction stops the knot coming undone?), or maybe the monkey sits in a light bucket.
Or you could choose to consider the piece of rope the monkey clutches as part of a monkey+rope piece system.

 

[haruspex]

@Steve4Physics (taking up as +ve)
1. If tension is the pair of forces which stretch the rope then why do we show in diagrams the tension inwards?

2. Tension is the force applied by monkey on rope. It is pair of outward forces. Magnitude wise $T=F_{MR}$. But vectorially $-T=-F_{MR}$.
Can I say $T=F_{RM}$?

3. What is the meaning of each?
$-T=-F_{MR}$.
$T=-F_{MR}$.
$-T=F_{MR}$.
$T=F_{MR}$.

1.
It depends what body is being considered in the FBD. Whether it is something pulled by an end of the rope or the rope itself, it will point away from that body.

2., 3.
'T' is being used to mean two things here.

On the one hand it can mean the tension, which exists everywhere along the rope acting on each short element as a pair of opposing forces rather than as a single force. In this meaning, direction is either outward from each rope element (tension) or inward on it (compression).

On the other hand, it can mean one of that pair at an end of the rope, and it is up to you to decide which of the pair it stands for. When you write a force equation involving tension you are necessarily taking this second view.
I chose above to consider it as the force the monkey exerts on the rope.

 

[Steve4Physics]

@Steve4Physics (taking up as +ve)
1. If tension is the pair of forces which stretch the rope then why do we show in diagrams the tension inwards?

Did you read the link in @Lnewqban;s Post #26?

Tension is referred to as a ‘force’ but is a bit more complicated than a simple force.

Say we have rope, AB represented as A------B .

Pull A left with a force of 10N and pull B right with another force of 10N.

10N←A------B→10N

The system is in equlibrium and we have an ‘inwards force’ inside the rope, which stops A and B moving apart. This ‘inwards force’ is called the tension.

At the ends, A is being pulled right by tension and B is being pulled left. We say the tension (inside the rope) is T=10N and we represent it by a pair of inwards arrows:

10N←A→--←-B→10N

The forces at point A are: 10N←A→T

The forces at point B are: T←B→10N

(Note, the external applied 10N forces are not called tension, though they are numerically equal to the tension here.)

2. Tension is the force applied by monkey on rope. It is pair of outward forces.

I don't know what you mean by 'It is a pair of outwards forces.'.

Magnitude wise $T=F_{MR}$. But vectorially $-T=-F_{MR}$.
Can I say $T=F_{RM}$?

3. What is the meaning of each?
$-T=-F_{MR}$.
$T=-F_{MR}$.
$-T=F_{MR}$.
$T=F_{MR}$.

Sorry, I don't understand the questions.

 

[Steve4Physics]

I don't see that how the monkey is attached to the rope is of any interest. Could be friction, could be the rope is tied around the monkey (do we need to get into how the friction stops the knot coming undone?), or maybe the monkey sits in a light bucket.
Or you could choose to consider the piece of rope the monkey clutches as part of a monkey+rope piece system.

It’s simply the desire to correctly name the actual physical forces which operate.

Also, recognising the role of friction might be important in some (slightly harder) problems, e.g. finding the monkey’s maximum upwards acceleration.

 

[vcsharp2003]

I don't see that how the monkey is attached to the rope is of any interest. Could be friction, could be the rope is tied around the monkey (do we need to get into how the friction stops the knot coming undone?), or maybe the monkey sits in a light bucket.
Or you could choose to consider the piece of rope the monkey clutches as part of a monkey+rope piece system.

In the absence of a diagram, it can get confusing to understand the question. The scenario that I had in mind while looking at the question is as below, where frictional force makes sense.

I'm not sure if the scenario of question is different from what I thought.

 

[rudransh verma]

You mean you used T tension as a condition in rope and wrote Tension as a condition is $T=F_{MR}$ whereas I used it as a single force F

In this meaning, direction is either outward from each rope element (tension) or inward on it (compression).

Can you show a diagram?

The system is in equlibrium and we have an ‘inwards force’ inside the rope, which stops A and B moving apart.

This is understandable but what you are telling is a bit complicated without diagram

On the other hand, it can mean one of that pair at an end of the rope, and it is up to you to decide which of the pair it stands for.

Again Please show a diagram

 

[Steve4Physics]

This is understandable but what you are telling is a bit complicated without diagram

I thought I already had (in Post #42) included diagrams. Here they are again:

10N←A------B→10N (external forces on rope being pulled outwards)

10N←A→--←-B→10N (internal force (tension, T) inside the rope shown)

10N←A→T (forces acting at point A)

T←B→10N (forces acting at point B)

You might like to watch a video I did about tension (the sound is a bit crackly):

 

[rudransh verma]

I thought I already had (in Post #42) included diagrams. Here they are again:

No i am telling @haruspex to give diagram like you did. But thanks for additional information.
By the way can you tell me when we write something like $T=F_{MR}$ then are we saying $T$ is equal to $F_{MR}$ or the value of $T$ is $F_{MR}$

 

[kuruman]

No i am telling @haruspex to give diagram like you did. But thanks for additional information.
By the way can you tell me when we write something like $T=F_{MR}$ then are we saying $T$ is equal to $F_{MR}$ or the value of $T$ is $F_{MR}$

Shown below is my diagram adapted from @vcsharp2003's. We know that there are two items that exert a force on the monkey, the rope and the Earth. The forces are shown as arrows in the diagram. You can label them any way you wish. We also know that the monkey is moving up at constant speed. That's all you need to answer the question.

 

[jbriggs444]

No i am telling @haruspex to give diagram like you did. But thanks for additional information.
By the way can you tell me when we write something like $T=F_{MR}$ then are we saying $T$ is equal to $F_{MR}$ or the value of $T$ is $F_{MR}$

When we write equalities in physics, we normally mean that the two quantities are identical. Not that they are literally one and the same thing.

We do hold than when two entities are literally one and the same thing, they have the same quantititative measure. So $F_{\text{MR}}=F_{\text{MR}}$ in both senses.

In first year physics, we often play a little bit fast and loose with the distinction between a vector value, a scalar value and a tensor value. We do not even explain to students what a "tensor" is and how it might be considered to have a single numeric value.

So we can casually write that $T=F_\text{MR}$ when we may mean that the downward vertical force ($T$) exerted to anchor the bottom end of the rope is literally the same force that the monkey applies on the rope.

The tension in an ideal rope is the same as the scalar force applied at either end away from the middle.

 

[rudransh verma]

So we can casually write that T=FMR when we may mean that the downward vertical force (T) exerted to anchor the bottom end of the rope is literally the same force that the monkey applies on the rope.

The tension in an ideal rope is the same as the scalar force applied at either end away from the middle.

This casual explanation is making my life very difficult from morning (and now its night time) because what I knew is Tension T's direction when the rope is under stress is upwards and the force applied by monkey is downwards. So $T=F_{MR}=-mg$
So tension is basically a force that the rope applies back when it is under stress. It is an inward force. Tension T's direction at end points of rope where its attached to the body and ceiling is inwards. Tension is what we pull something with not push.

This video explains nicely how force applied is transmitted from one end of rope to other under tension.
Someone said that tension is pair of opposite forces acting on small rope elements all along the rope cancelling each other. At the ends there is just one force acting inwards. Am I right?

 

[Steve4Physics]

No i am telling @haruspex to give diagram like you did.

I would advise 'asking' rather than 'telling'!

By the way can you tell me when we write something like $T=F_{MR}$ then are we saying $T$ is equal to $F_{MR}$ or the value of $T$ is $F_{MR}$

There is no difference, 'is equal to' means having the same value.

But remember, different vectors can have the same magnitude but the vectors will be unequal if their directions are different.

$\vec T$ is the tension acting upwards on the rope (where it is hed by the monkey).
$\vec F_{MR}$ is the frictional force acting downward on the rope.
The rope is in equilibrium. To be rigorous we should write:
$\vec T+ \vec {F_{MR}}$ = 0
which gives
$\vec T = -\vec {F_{MR}}$
Less rigorously we could write this as:
$T = -F_{MR}$

In terms of magnitudes we can write:
$|T| = |F_{MR}|$

If we are using '$T$' and '$F_{MR}$' to represent magnitudes, we should state this to avoid confusion/ambiguity. Then we can write:
$T - F_{MR}=0$ which gives
$T = F_{MR}$.

We could also use the unit vector ($\hat k$) but this might be a bit over-the-top for this type of problem.

 

[rudransh verma]

I would advise 'asking' rather than 'telling'!There is no difference, 'is equal to' means having the same value.

But remember, different vectors can have the same magnitude but the vectors will be unequal if their directions are different.

$\vec T$ is the tension acting upwards on the rope (where it is hed by the monkey).
$\vec F_{MR}$ is the frictional force acting downward on the rope.
The rope is in equilibrium. To be rigorous we should write:
$\vec T+ \vec {F_{MR}}$ = 0
which gives
$\vec T = -\vec {F_{MR}}$
Less rigorously we could write this as:
$T = -F_{MR}$

In terms of magnitudes we can write:
$|T| = |F_{MR}|$

If we are using '$T$' and '$F_{MR}$' to represent magnitudes, we should state this to avoid confusion/ambiguity. Then we can write:
$T - F_{MR}=0$ which gives
$T = F_{MR}$.

We could also use the unit vector ($\hat k$) but this might be a bit over-the-top for this type of problem.

Yes! Thank you! @haruspex should understand this. People like us are in their elementary stage. Sticking to one rule will help in long run like something like up is +ve sign convention and not changing signs every time. Writing casually in my views should be avoided because it hinders in what one is trying to say. It should be rigorous.

 

[kuruman]

$\vec T+ \vec {F_{MR}}$ = 0
which gives
$\vec T = -\vec {F_{MR}}$
Less rigorously we could write this as:
$T = -F_{MR}$

I agree with first two equations, but the one following "less rigorously" can be confusing to a novice. That's because a symbol with an arrow over it denotes a vector whilst the same symbol without the arrow denotes the magnitude of the vector. In one dimension, the "less rigorous" approach that you show confuses the magnitude of the vector, which is always positive, with the component of the vector which could be positive or negative. All this can easily be sorted out by using, rigorously, unit vectors and subscripts for components, both which are routinely dropped in the less rigorous approach.

Starting with
$\vec T+ \vec {F}_{MR}=0$, we rewrite the one-dimensional vectors in terms of their components as
$T_y~\hat y+ F_{MR,y}~\hat y=0$
Here is where we drop the unit vectors and write
$T_y+ F_{MR,y}=0~\implies~T_y=-F_{MR,y}$
which shows that when two one-dimensional vectors add to zero, their components have the same magnitude and opposite signs.

The interpretation of vectors in FBDs is that the label of the arrow denotes the magnitude while the direction of the arrow denotes the direction of the vector. So if we have the FBD of this, we would see two vectors labeled $T$ and $F_{MR}$ pointing in opposite directions.
Starting again with
$\vec T+ \vec {F}_{MR}=0$, we rewrite the one-dimensional vectors in terms of their magnitudes as
$\vec T=T~(+\hat y)~;~~ \vec {F}_{MR}=F_{MR}~(-\hat y)$
Then
$T~(+\hat y)+F_{MR}~(-\hat y)=0$
$T~(+\hat y)=-F_{MR}~(-\hat y)=F_{MR}(+\hat y)$
Again we drop the unit vectors and write
$T=F_{MR}$
which shows that when two vectors point in opposite directions and add to zero, they have the same magnitude.

In short, when we write an equation relating two or more one-dimensional vectors, we have to be clear whether the equation relates components or magnitudes.

 

[haruspex]

In the absence of a diagram, it can get confusing to understand the question. The scenario that I had in mind while looking at the question is as below, where frictional force makes sense.

I'm not sure if the scenario of question is different from what I thought.

View attachment 296996

That is still answered by my last option, consider the piece of rope the monkey clutches as part of a monkey+rope piece system.

 

[haruspex]

But remember, different vectors can have the same magnitude but the vectors will be unequal if their directions are different.

Yes, but for tension it is a little different. Tension and force have the same dimension, but the notion of direction is quite different. Tension is not a vector.
Many students start off thinking that if there is a force magnitude F pulling on each end of a rope then the tension should be 2F. Strictly speaking, tension could have been defined that way, but it is not. So saying they have the same magnitude is just (the universally agreed) convention.

Sticking to one rule will help in long run like something like up is +ve sign convention and not changing signs every time.

More easily wished than done. In 3D problems, what could the fixed rule be for horizontal forces? Or maybe the context is gravity-free, so there is no vertical. And advisors on PF don't know what the students have been taught to do, and don't all have the same ways of working.

 

[rudransh verma]

Tension is not a vector.

Oh yes! That’s what I was missing. Tension is scalar. In whatever direction(angle we change) we pull the rope that is tied to a weight through a pulley, tension doesn’t change.
Can you elaborate?

 

[rudransh verma]

Any flexible connector, such as a string, rope, chain, wire, or cable, can exert pulls only parallel to its length; thus, a force carried by a flexible connector is a tension with direction parallel to the connector. It is important to understand that tension is a pull in a connector. In contrast, consider the phrase: “You can’t push a rope.” The tension force pulls outward along the two ends of a rope. Consider a person holding a mass on a rope as shown...”

So you mean tension is pulling the hand of the holder and the weight inwards. That is what tension is . It is a pulling force.

 

[Lnewqban]

Sorry, rudransh, I can't understand your question.
That statement that you have just posted is only a quotation from this link:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/4-5-normal-tension-a

What is about the concept of tension that is still troubling you after so many posts of this thread?

The way I understand the tension inside the rope (perhaps incorrectly):
The cohesion of the fibers, which is the natural attraction of similar molecules for each other, resists the action of the forces trying to separate those so many molecules.

The molecules of that rope do not allow much distance to grow between each other, reason for which the rope does not stretch as much as a rubber band or metal spring would do under stress.

If the magnitude of the external forces acting on the rope becomes greater than the cohesion of all the molecules contained in the plane of any cross-section of the rope, those molecules get separated and the rope breaks.

The rope of your example is no more no less than a solid link between the two forces in question: the static weight of the monkey and the reaction force at the anchor located at the top.
It could be long, short, that does not change the magnitude and direction of those external forces.

Or it could be a chain, a wire-rope, an ivy, a bungee cord, a spring, a long piece of wood, or any other thing able to transfer forces, creating internal tensions in the process.

Even if there is no rope and the monkey directly grabs the anchor or branch, its weight and the reaction at the point of anchorage would still be the same.

 

[rudransh verma]

That statement that you have just posted is only a quotation from this link:

I just want to be verified that I understand it right. All rope does when you say “The tension force pulls outward along the two ends of a rope” is that it is pulling inwards what is attached to it on both ends when the rope is under tension?

 

[jbriggs444]

I just want to be verified that I understand it right. All rope does when you say “The tension force pulls outward along the two ends of a rope” is that it is pulling inwards what is attached to it on both ends when the rope is under tension?

The attachment points pull outward on the rope. The rope pulls inward on the attachment points. For an ideal (massless) rope, the magnitudes of all four of those forces are identical.

One can see that they are identical by applying Newton's third law at the two attachment points ends and Newton's second and third laws in a daisy-chain all the way along the rope.