Equilibrium in Simple Pulley: Exploring the Contradiction of Force Application

  • Thread starter T@P
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physics
In summary, if a person pulls on one end of a simple pulley, then the tension in the rope will be the same on both sides of the pulley. If there is no pulley, just a single rope hanging down, the person would have to pull with twice as much force since they would have to support the entire weight.
  • #1
T@P
274
0
Assume that a person is pulling himself up in a bucket attached to a simple pulley (no double pulleys or anything), and that it is in a state fof equilibrium. For this to be true, equal forces must be applied to both sides of the pulley. (if the person has a mass m, and the force on one side is f, then f = mg)

does it matter the force is applied by the person in the bucket or not? I have reason to believe that fromthe bucket one must pull with less force to maintain and equilibrium, but this is counter intuitive. Any thoughts on why either can be true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For an ideal pulley and massless rope the tension will be the same throughout the rope. If one end of the rope is attached to the bucket, and the person pulls on the other end, then the amount of force the person must pull with is only half the weight of the "bucket + person". Think about it: how many ropes attach to the "bucket + person"?

If there was no pulley, just a single rope hanging down, the person would have to pull with twice as much force since they would have to support the entire weight. (The pulley provides a mechanical advantage.)

Does this help?
 
  • #3
can you be more precise? i don't quite understand the "mechanical advantage" of the pulley
 
  • #4
Forget about the man in the bucket and even the pulley. In the first case just look at it as a single mass (a brick say) held up by two ropes. Assuming the ropes are evenly spaced about the center of gravity, each will share the load equally. If you had three ropes attached to the same mass each would carry 1/3 the load and so on. In the second case, only one rope is attached to the same mass. It doesn't matter where the other end of the rope is as long as only one rope is attached to the mass and holding it in equilibrium. Since there is only one rope attached to the mass, it must provide all of the force on its own.
 
  • #5
T@P said:
can you be more precise? i don't quite understand the "mechanical advantage" of the pulley
Think of it like I and 5X5 explained. If the "person + bucket" is supported by two ropes, then each rope need only support half the weight. (Note: It doesn't matter that the "two" ropes are just the two ends of the same rope!) But if there's only one rope attached, that single rope must support the entire weight.

That arrangement of a person pulling themselves up in a bucket (or chair!) attached to a pulley is called a Bosun's chair. Check out the cartoon of "harry the painter" at the bottom of this web page for an illustration: http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/java/wheelAxle/pulley.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
thanks a lot for your help. I was wondering if any of you knew the equations of these forces? I understand it conceptually, but i would greatly appreciate the equations. thanks again for the wonderful site Doc Al.
 
  • #7
T@P said:
I was wondering if any of you knew the equations of these forces? I understand it conceptually, but i would greatly appreciate the equations.
It's easy. Since the person is in equilibrium, the forces pulling him up (the tension in the ropes) must balance the force him down (his weight). In the case of the person pulling himself up in the bosun's chair there are two rope connections, thus: 2T = mg.
 
  • #8
Thanks a lot for your advice. Everything makes sense now, thanks!
 
  • #9
What if the person uses his muscles too, not only his weight?
 
  • #10
saksham said:
What if the person uses his muscles too, not only his weight?
In the person exerts a force on the rope (thus creating tension in the rope) such that 2T > mg, then he will accelerate upwards.
 
  • #11
I'm a bit confused. I understand the concept. What happens if someone is trying to pull the man in the bucket from the ground? Would that be the same as pulling him up with one rope from someone above him? I have this homework question and the force required to keep the man in equilibrium is twice that of the man in bucket trying to keep himself at equilibrium.

[edit]
heres a picture
http://img337 . imageshack.us/i/physicsyp.png/
with no spaces
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: Equilibrium in Simple Pulley: Exploring the Contradiction of Force Application

What is the difference between a physics problem and a physics contradiction?

A physics problem is a situation or puzzle that requires the application of physics principles and laws to find a solution. It may involve calculating quantities such as forces, velocities, or energies. On the other hand, a physics contradiction is a situation where two or more physical laws or principles seem to contradict each other, making it impossible to find a consistent solution.

How do physicists approach resolving a physics contradiction?

Physicists use the scientific method to systematically investigate and analyze the conflicting laws or principles. This may involve conducting experiments, developing new theories, or revising existing ones to find a unified explanation that can resolve the contradiction.

Can a physics contradiction ever be completely resolved?

In some cases, a physics contradiction can be resolved through the development of a new theory or concept that can reconcile the conflicting laws or principles. However, there are also instances where a complete resolution may not be possible due to the limitations of our current understanding of physics.

Are there any famous examples of physics contradictions that have been resolved?

One famous example is the wave-particle duality of light, which was initially thought to be a contradiction. However, through the development of quantum mechanics, it was discovered that light behaves as both a wave and a particle, depending on the experimental setup. This resolved the apparent contradiction and led to a deeper understanding of the nature of light.

How do physics contradictions contribute to the advancement of science?

Physics contradictions challenge our current understanding and push scientists to think critically and develop new theories and concepts. Resolving these contradictions often leads to significant advancements in our understanding of the universe and can lead to the development of new technologies and applications.

Back
Top