Where Did I Go Wrong? Solving a Block and Pulley Problem with Friction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lord Anoobis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Work
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a block and pulley problem involving friction, where a block of mass M is on a table connected by a cord to a hanging block of mass m. The objective is to derive an expression for the speed of the hanging block just before it hits the ground, considering the coefficient of kinetic friction μk.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to analyze their previous solution attempts, noting an error in the application of work-energy principles. Participants question the derivation of equations and the treatment of work done by tension.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying the relationships between energy, work, and the equations used. There is recognition of potential errors in sign and placement of work in the equations, leading to a deeper exploration of the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

There is an emphasis on understanding the implications of work done on the system and the importance of correctly applying energy conservation principles. The discussion reflects on the challenges of accounting for work in different contexts within the problem.

Lord Anoobis
Messages
131
Reaction score
22
μ

Homework Statement


A simple diagram shows a block of mass M on a horizontal table with a light cord running from it to the right over a pulley at the edge of the table. At the other end of the cord hangs a block of mass m, which is a height h above the ground. The problem is to derive an expression for the speed of the block m just before it hits the floor if the coefficient of friction for the block on the table is μk.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Firstly, let me say that my second attempt at this problem led to the correct answer. However, this is of little consolation, because the reason behind the error in the first effort and its subsequent rectification is not clear.

I used the tension in the cord ##T = \frac{mMg(μ_k + 1)}{m + M}## to determine the work done by that force, the friction the already incorporated. This work, ##W_T## is a negative quantity, so

##W_T = -\frac{mMgh(μ_k + 1)}{m + M}##

Then followed ##K + W_T = U_g## leading to

##\frac{1}{2}mv^2 - \frac{mMgh(μ_k + 1)}{m + M} = mgh##

And some manipulation leads to the incorrect expression. Changing the negative sign to positive in the above equation gives the correct answer. What is the error here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Lord Anoobis said:
##W_T = -\frac{mMgh(μ_k + 1)}{m + M}##
This being an expression for the work done by tension on the hanging mass m, correct?

Then followed ##K + W_T = U_g##
Can you flesh out how you obtained this equation?

Ordinarily, one would start with Total Initial Energy + Work Done on System = Total Final Energy.
 
jbriggs444 said:
This being an expression for the work done by tension on the hanging mass m, correct?Can you flesh out how you obtained this equation?

Ordinarily, one would start with Total Initial Energy + Work Done on System = Total Final Energy.
Yes, that expression is the work done by tension. For the other, I added the kinetic energy of the block at ground level to the work done by tension and set it equal to the initial gravitational potential energy.
 
Lord Anoobis said:
Yes, that expression is the work done by tension. For the other, I added the kinetic energy of the block at ground level to the work done by tension and set it equal to the initial gravitational potential energy.

So that would be:

Final Total Energy + Work Done on System = Initial Total Energy.

Can you see the difference between that and the starting point that I suggested?
 
jbriggs444 said:
So that would be:

Final Total Energy + Work Done on System = Initial Total Energy.

Can you see the difference between that and the starting point that I suggested?

Sorry for the delay, I rushed back as quickly as possible. What I see now is that with ##K + W_T = U_g##, I basically accounted for work done on the system twice, correct?
 
Lord Anoobis said:
Sorry for the delay, I rushed back as quickly as possible. What I see now is that with ##K + W_T = U_g##, I basically accounted for work done on the system twice, correct?
Lots of ways to look at it.

Work went on the wrong side of the equal sign. Or...
The work had the wrong sign. Or...
The work was evaluated on the forward path but the equation applied to the reversed path. Or...
The work was added when it should have been subtracted.

But yes, the net effect is to have an error equal to twice the magnitude of the work.
 
jbriggs444 said:
Lots of ways to look at it.

Work went on the wrong side of the equal sign. Or...
The work had the wrong sign. Or...
The work was evaluated on the forward path but the equation applied to the reversed path. Or...
The work was added when it should have been subtracted.

But yes, the net effect is to have an error equal to twice the magnitude of the work.
A valuable lesson learned. Thanks a bunch.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K