Go Premium for a chance to win a PS4. Enter to Win

x
Solved

# basic physics - pulleys on a hill

Posted on 2010-08-25
Medium Priority
442 Views
Hi

I was hoping someone would look at the following question for me. I have tried to derive equation 1 below (the show derivation link isn't working so i can't check) in their solution below. I have scanned in my working out. When i did the problem i got the correct answer a totally different way so I wanted to check i could do it  their way too.

It might look a lot but it will only take you experts a couple of minutes I'm sure :)

thanks
p1.jpg
p3.jpg
p4.jpg
0
Question by:andieje

LVL 85

Expert Comment

ID: 33526189
I would say force along the rope rather than force in x direction
0

Author Comment

ID: 33526252
Sorry what do  you mean?

Do you mean the derivation is wrong or that the derivation is ok but i shouldn't call the force Fx
0

LVL 85

Expert Comment

ID: 33526311
You can call it Fx, but it is only in the x direction at the very top of the pulley, so it may be confusing.
0

Author Comment

ID: 33526327
ok, see what you mean. Any comments on the derivation?
0

LVL 3

Expert Comment

ID: 33526728
Try starting like this:

Force for the rope is the same for both masses, and boxes don´t move, so:

gM1sin1=gM2sin2

M1=M2.(sin2/sin1)
0

Author Comment

ID: 33530299
santiago, i do appreciate that you can get to the equation in different ways. I was just interested in any comments on the way i had done it.

Another way would have been to say that net force along x axis = M2.g.sin2 - M1.g.sin1

so acceleration = (M2.g.sin2 - M1.g.sin1) / m1 + m2

0

LVL 13

Accepted Solution

Carl Bohman earned 2000 total points
ID: 33534129
A piece of advice: You really ought to try to be consistent with your notation, specifically with the subscripts.  m1g is not the same as mg1.  The first implies more than one mass with a fixed value for g.  The second implies a single mass with multiple values for g.  While it is possible to realize that you mean the first when you write the second, such looseness has a much higher chance of leading to mistakes or miscalculations (which are even harder to find when the notation is inconsistent).

As to your derivation, I find it logical and relatively easy to follow (ignoring the notation inconsistencies).  In essence, you have defined equations for all elements of your system and then merged them into a single equation representing the entire system.  This basic approach is very repeatable, so it's a good approach to know.  Other approaches may be faster in some cases, but they often rely on a little more intuition (e.g., knowing how to quickly determine the net force as you did in ID:33530299) and/or are not generally applicable to all systems (e.g., consider if there were 3 or more masses or if the inclined plane was not a straight line or if the system was initially in motion).
0

Author Comment

ID: 33536802
I accept the point about the notation. I was just rushing when i wrote it out 'neatly' for this forum
0

Author Closing Comment

ID: 33536810
0

## Featured Post

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

How to Win a Jar of Candy Corn: A Scientific Approach! I love mathematics. If you love mathematics also, you may enjoy this tip on how to use math to win your own jar of candy corn and to impress your friends. As I said, I love math, but I gu…
This article seeks to propel the full implementation of geothermal power plants in Mexico as a renewable energy source.
This is a video describing the growing solar energy use in Utah. This is a topic that greatly interests me and so I decided to produce a video about it.
Finds all prime numbers in a range requested and places them in a public primes() array. I've demostrated a template size of 30 (2 * 3 * 5) but larger templates can be built such 210  (2 * 3 * 5 * 7) or 2310  (2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11). The larger templa…
###### Suggested Courses
Course of the Month8 days, 20 hours left to enroll