That is exactly the crux of my issue. I was able to obtain the same equations in my solution but I was utterly confused why the author seemingly did a switcheroo.jbriggs444 said:What I see here is a formula for (b) that evaluates to ##a## which you have agreed is the acceleration of ##m_1##. However, (b) was supposed to be about the acceleration of ##m_2##.
I suspect that it is a correct answer for (d). Though I have not verified the formula.
What I also see here is a formula for (d) that evaluates to ##a-A## which you have agreed is the acceleration of ##m_2##. However, (d) was supposed to be about the acceleration of ##m_1##.
I suspect that this is a correct answer for (b). Though I have not verified the formula.
So your concern all along was not with the consistency of the accelerations. Or the correctness of the solutions. It was with labelling.niko_niko said:That is exactly the crux of my issue. I was able to obtain the same equations in my solution but I was utterly confused why the author seemingly did a switcheroo.
Did you see post #27?jbriggs444 said:What I see here is a formula for (b) that evaluates to ##a## which you have agreed is the acceleration of ##m_1##. However, (b) was supposed to be about the acceleration of ##m_2##.
I suspect that it is a correct answer for (d). Though I have not verified the formula.
What I also see here is a formula for (d) that evaluates to ##a-A## which you have agreed is the acceleration of ##m_2##. However, (d) was supposed to be about the acceleration of ##m_1##.
I suspect that this is a correct answer for (b). Though I have not verified the formula.