Integrating Tension over Atwoods Pulley
I took this picture out of one of Morin's problem books.
Before you mark it as a homework question, please read till the end!
The entire system is under the influence of gravity. The ropes are massless, and the circle is massless.
The original question asks to give the force the hand must exert on the pulley in order to keep the pulley from accelerating downwards. The masses are free to move, as they will if one of the masses is greater than the other. What we want to keep still is the actual circle.
My question has to do with a specific step:
$F_{hand} = 2T$
Why is it that the force we must apply from above must be equal to $2T$? I know the obvious answer:
"Well, because if you analyze the system, there's two parts of the rope pulling down on the pulley, each one pulling down with a tension $T$".
But what I want to see is how a rope that has a tension of $T$ running through it and wraps around a circle causes that rope to exert $2T$ on the circle.
The argument that its the net force downwards isn't really enough: if those sections pointing downwards were each hanging from the pulley, then the argument would be enough.
But in this case the rope wraps around the pulley, with each tiny section $dl$ of rope exerting a different amount of force in the vertical direction on the pulley. I'd like to see how the sum of all the forces exerted downwards on the pulley by the rope wrapped over it sum up to $2T$.
Thank you!
Edit:
How do we integrate the normal force from tiny pieces of rope over the entire circular pulley in order to get a total vertical force of $2T$ on it?
newtonian-mechanics forces classical-mechanics tension
add a comment |
I took this picture out of one of Morin's problem books.
Before you mark it as a homework question, please read till the end!
The entire system is under the influence of gravity. The ropes are massless, and the circle is massless.
The original question asks to give the force the hand must exert on the pulley in order to keep the pulley from accelerating downwards. The masses are free to move, as they will if one of the masses is greater than the other. What we want to keep still is the actual circle.
My question has to do with a specific step:
$F_{hand} = 2T$
Why is it that the force we must apply from above must be equal to $2T$? I know the obvious answer:
"Well, because if you analyze the system, there's two parts of the rope pulling down on the pulley, each one pulling down with a tension $T$".
But what I want to see is how a rope that has a tension of $T$ running through it and wraps around a circle causes that rope to exert $2T$ on the circle.
The argument that its the net force downwards isn't really enough: if those sections pointing downwards were each hanging from the pulley, then the argument would be enough.
But in this case the rope wraps around the pulley, with each tiny section $dl$ of rope exerting a different amount of force in the vertical direction on the pulley. I'd like to see how the sum of all the forces exerted downwards on the pulley by the rope wrapped over it sum up to $2T$.
Thank you!
Edit:
How do we integrate the normal force from tiny pieces of rope over the entire circular pulley in order to get a total vertical force of $2T$ on it?
newtonian-mechanics forces classical-mechanics tension
1
Possible duplicate of Why does the tension on the pulley in an Atwood machine not equal $(m_1 + m_2)g$?
– Joshuah Heath
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't answer my question. I understand that it's not equal to (m1 + m2)g, and that the force on the pulley must be a function of the tension in the rope in contact with it, not of the weight of the masses directly. It also makes sense to me that the tension decreases when the masses are accelerating.
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath My question is, more specifically, how to integrate the normal force of pieces of rope on the circle over the surface that the rope is in contact with the circle in order to get 2T? This wouldn't be necessary if the rope was just hanging from the circle, but since it wraps around...
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
You should have just asked that question then. All of the work you show is pointless to your question. Why does it matter what $2T$ is in terms of the masses and gravity?
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
Agrred @AaronStevens I realized that as I was typing that comment :)
– Joshua Ronis
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I took this picture out of one of Morin's problem books.
Before you mark it as a homework question, please read till the end!
The entire system is under the influence of gravity. The ropes are massless, and the circle is massless.
The original question asks to give the force the hand must exert on the pulley in order to keep the pulley from accelerating downwards. The masses are free to move, as they will if one of the masses is greater than the other. What we want to keep still is the actual circle.
My question has to do with a specific step:
$F_{hand} = 2T$
Why is it that the force we must apply from above must be equal to $2T$? I know the obvious answer:
"Well, because if you analyze the system, there's two parts of the rope pulling down on the pulley, each one pulling down with a tension $T$".
But what I want to see is how a rope that has a tension of $T$ running through it and wraps around a circle causes that rope to exert $2T$ on the circle.
The argument that its the net force downwards isn't really enough: if those sections pointing downwards were each hanging from the pulley, then the argument would be enough.
But in this case the rope wraps around the pulley, with each tiny section $dl$ of rope exerting a different amount of force in the vertical direction on the pulley. I'd like to see how the sum of all the forces exerted downwards on the pulley by the rope wrapped over it sum up to $2T$.
Thank you!
Edit:
How do we integrate the normal force from tiny pieces of rope over the entire circular pulley in order to get a total vertical force of $2T$ on it?
newtonian-mechanics forces classical-mechanics tension
I took this picture out of one of Morin's problem books.
Before you mark it as a homework question, please read till the end!
The entire system is under the influence of gravity. The ropes are massless, and the circle is massless.
The original question asks to give the force the hand must exert on the pulley in order to keep the pulley from accelerating downwards. The masses are free to move, as they will if one of the masses is greater than the other. What we want to keep still is the actual circle.
My question has to do with a specific step:
$F_{hand} = 2T$
Why is it that the force we must apply from above must be equal to $2T$? I know the obvious answer:
"Well, because if you analyze the system, there's two parts of the rope pulling down on the pulley, each one pulling down with a tension $T$".
But what I want to see is how a rope that has a tension of $T$ running through it and wraps around a circle causes that rope to exert $2T$ on the circle.
The argument that its the net force downwards isn't really enough: if those sections pointing downwards were each hanging from the pulley, then the argument would be enough.
But in this case the rope wraps around the pulley, with each tiny section $dl$ of rope exerting a different amount of force in the vertical direction on the pulley. I'd like to see how the sum of all the forces exerted downwards on the pulley by the rope wrapped over it sum up to $2T$.
Thank you!
Edit:
How do we integrate the normal force from tiny pieces of rope over the entire circular pulley in order to get a total vertical force of $2T$ on it?
newtonian-mechanics forces classical-mechanics tension
newtonian-mechanics forces classical-mechanics tension
edited 59 mins ago
asked 3 hours ago
Joshua Ronis
8672418
8672418
1
Possible duplicate of Why does the tension on the pulley in an Atwood machine not equal $(m_1 + m_2)g$?
– Joshuah Heath
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't answer my question. I understand that it's not equal to (m1 + m2)g, and that the force on the pulley must be a function of the tension in the rope in contact with it, not of the weight of the masses directly. It also makes sense to me that the tension decreases when the masses are accelerating.
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath My question is, more specifically, how to integrate the normal force of pieces of rope on the circle over the surface that the rope is in contact with the circle in order to get 2T? This wouldn't be necessary if the rope was just hanging from the circle, but since it wraps around...
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
You should have just asked that question then. All of the work you show is pointless to your question. Why does it matter what $2T$ is in terms of the masses and gravity?
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
Agrred @AaronStevens I realized that as I was typing that comment :)
– Joshua Ronis
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
Possible duplicate of Why does the tension on the pulley in an Atwood machine not equal $(m_1 + m_2)g$?
– Joshuah Heath
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't answer my question. I understand that it's not equal to (m1 + m2)g, and that the force on the pulley must be a function of the tension in the rope in contact with it, not of the weight of the masses directly. It also makes sense to me that the tension decreases when the masses are accelerating.
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath My question is, more specifically, how to integrate the normal force of pieces of rope on the circle over the surface that the rope is in contact with the circle in order to get 2T? This wouldn't be necessary if the rope was just hanging from the circle, but since it wraps around...
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
You should have just asked that question then. All of the work you show is pointless to your question. Why does it matter what $2T$ is in terms of the masses and gravity?
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
Agrred @AaronStevens I realized that as I was typing that comment :)
– Joshua Ronis
1 hour ago
1
1
Possible duplicate of Why does the tension on the pulley in an Atwood machine not equal $(m_1 + m_2)g$?
– Joshuah Heath
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Why does the tension on the pulley in an Atwood machine not equal $(m_1 + m_2)g$?
– Joshuah Heath
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't answer my question. I understand that it's not equal to (m1 + m2)g, and that the force on the pulley must be a function of the tension in the rope in contact with it, not of the weight of the masses directly. It also makes sense to me that the tension decreases when the masses are accelerating.
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't answer my question. I understand that it's not equal to (m1 + m2)g, and that the force on the pulley must be a function of the tension in the rope in contact with it, not of the weight of the masses directly. It also makes sense to me that the tension decreases when the masses are accelerating.
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath My question is, more specifically, how to integrate the normal force of pieces of rope on the circle over the surface that the rope is in contact with the circle in order to get 2T? This wouldn't be necessary if the rope was just hanging from the circle, but since it wraps around...
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath My question is, more specifically, how to integrate the normal force of pieces of rope on the circle over the surface that the rope is in contact with the circle in order to get 2T? This wouldn't be necessary if the rope was just hanging from the circle, but since it wraps around...
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
You should have just asked that question then. All of the work you show is pointless to your question. Why does it matter what $2T$ is in terms of the masses and gravity?
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
You should have just asked that question then. All of the work you show is pointless to your question. Why does it matter what $2T$ is in terms of the masses and gravity?
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
Agrred @AaronStevens I realized that as I was typing that comment :)
– Joshua Ronis
1 hour ago
Agrred @AaronStevens I realized that as I was typing that comment :)
– Joshua Ronis
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Consider the system of the pulley, plus all of the rope directly touching the pulley. The net force on this system must be zero, but it experiences two downward forces totalling $2T$. This must be balanced by an upward force $2T$ exerted by the hand. There is absolutely no need to consider the forces between the rope and pulley here, because they are internal forces.
Now consider the system of the pulley alone. It experiences an upward force $2T$ from the hand, so it must also experience a downward force $2T$ from the rope directly touching it, by normal force.
This is completely rigorous, no integration required. But if you insist on an explicit derivation, simply note that the normal force per angle $dtheta$ is $T , dtheta$. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force is $T sin theta , dtheta$. Hence we have
$$F = int_0^pi T sin theta , dtheta = 2 T.$$
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
add a comment |
It does not really matter the details of the interaction between the rope and the circle. Imagine instead a system of particles all moving around, in such a case, if the center of mass does not move, the sum of forces up must be equal to the sum of forces down. You can imagine your system as the circle with the rope but without the masses. In such a case the two forces downards ar T and T, made by each mass over the rope, and the force up is F, because both the mass and the acceleration is zero, then F=2T.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449596%2fintegrating-tension-over-atwoods-pulley%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Consider the system of the pulley, plus all of the rope directly touching the pulley. The net force on this system must be zero, but it experiences two downward forces totalling $2T$. This must be balanced by an upward force $2T$ exerted by the hand. There is absolutely no need to consider the forces between the rope and pulley here, because they are internal forces.
Now consider the system of the pulley alone. It experiences an upward force $2T$ from the hand, so it must also experience a downward force $2T$ from the rope directly touching it, by normal force.
This is completely rigorous, no integration required. But if you insist on an explicit derivation, simply note that the normal force per angle $dtheta$ is $T , dtheta$. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force is $T sin theta , dtheta$. Hence we have
$$F = int_0^pi T sin theta , dtheta = 2 T.$$
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
add a comment |
Consider the system of the pulley, plus all of the rope directly touching the pulley. The net force on this system must be zero, but it experiences two downward forces totalling $2T$. This must be balanced by an upward force $2T$ exerted by the hand. There is absolutely no need to consider the forces between the rope and pulley here, because they are internal forces.
Now consider the system of the pulley alone. It experiences an upward force $2T$ from the hand, so it must also experience a downward force $2T$ from the rope directly touching it, by normal force.
This is completely rigorous, no integration required. But if you insist on an explicit derivation, simply note that the normal force per angle $dtheta$ is $T , dtheta$. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force is $T sin theta , dtheta$. Hence we have
$$F = int_0^pi T sin theta , dtheta = 2 T.$$
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
add a comment |
Consider the system of the pulley, plus all of the rope directly touching the pulley. The net force on this system must be zero, but it experiences two downward forces totalling $2T$. This must be balanced by an upward force $2T$ exerted by the hand. There is absolutely no need to consider the forces between the rope and pulley here, because they are internal forces.
Now consider the system of the pulley alone. It experiences an upward force $2T$ from the hand, so it must also experience a downward force $2T$ from the rope directly touching it, by normal force.
This is completely rigorous, no integration required. But if you insist on an explicit derivation, simply note that the normal force per angle $dtheta$ is $T , dtheta$. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force is $T sin theta , dtheta$. Hence we have
$$F = int_0^pi T sin theta , dtheta = 2 T.$$
Consider the system of the pulley, plus all of the rope directly touching the pulley. The net force on this system must be zero, but it experiences two downward forces totalling $2T$. This must be balanced by an upward force $2T$ exerted by the hand. There is absolutely no need to consider the forces between the rope and pulley here, because they are internal forces.
Now consider the system of the pulley alone. It experiences an upward force $2T$ from the hand, so it must also experience a downward force $2T$ from the rope directly touching it, by normal force.
This is completely rigorous, no integration required. But if you insist on an explicit derivation, simply note that the normal force per angle $dtheta$ is $T , dtheta$. Furthermore, the vertical component of the normal force is $T sin theta , dtheta$. Hence we have
$$F = int_0^pi T sin theta , dtheta = 2 T.$$
answered 1 hour ago
knzhou
40.7k11114196
40.7k11114196
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
add a comment |
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
I like that you presented the integral to illustrate the net force.
– ggcg
1 hour ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
Thanks. Could you maybe include a little picture to go along with it?
– Joshua Ronis
56 mins ago
add a comment |
It does not really matter the details of the interaction between the rope and the circle. Imagine instead a system of particles all moving around, in such a case, if the center of mass does not move, the sum of forces up must be equal to the sum of forces down. You can imagine your system as the circle with the rope but without the masses. In such a case the two forces downards ar T and T, made by each mass over the rope, and the force up is F, because both the mass and the acceleration is zero, then F=2T.
add a comment |
It does not really matter the details of the interaction between the rope and the circle. Imagine instead a system of particles all moving around, in such a case, if the center of mass does not move, the sum of forces up must be equal to the sum of forces down. You can imagine your system as the circle with the rope but without the masses. In such a case the two forces downards ar T and T, made by each mass over the rope, and the force up is F, because both the mass and the acceleration is zero, then F=2T.
add a comment |
It does not really matter the details of the interaction between the rope and the circle. Imagine instead a system of particles all moving around, in such a case, if the center of mass does not move, the sum of forces up must be equal to the sum of forces down. You can imagine your system as the circle with the rope but without the masses. In such a case the two forces downards ar T and T, made by each mass over the rope, and the force up is F, because both the mass and the acceleration is zero, then F=2T.
It does not really matter the details of the interaction between the rope and the circle. Imagine instead a system of particles all moving around, in such a case, if the center of mass does not move, the sum of forces up must be equal to the sum of forces down. You can imagine your system as the circle with the rope but without the masses. In such a case the two forces downards ar T and T, made by each mass over the rope, and the force up is F, because both the mass and the acceleration is zero, then F=2T.
answered 2 hours ago
Wolphram jonny
10.7k22553
10.7k22553
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f449596%2fintegrating-tension-over-atwoods-pulley%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Possible duplicate of Why does the tension on the pulley in an Atwood machine not equal $(m_1 + m_2)g$?
– Joshuah Heath
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't answer my question. I understand that it's not equal to (m1 + m2)g, and that the force on the pulley must be a function of the tension in the rope in contact with it, not of the weight of the masses directly. It also makes sense to me that the tension decreases when the masses are accelerating.
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
@JoshuahHeath My question is, more specifically, how to integrate the normal force of pieces of rope on the circle over the surface that the rope is in contact with the circle in order to get 2T? This wouldn't be necessary if the rope was just hanging from the circle, but since it wraps around...
– Joshua Ronis
3 hours ago
You should have just asked that question then. All of the work you show is pointless to your question. Why does it matter what $2T$ is in terms of the masses and gravity?
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
Agrred @AaronStevens I realized that as I was typing that comment :)
– Joshua Ronis
1 hour ago