Morin's mechanics problem 2.3 (motionless chain)

AI Thread Summary
Morin's mechanics problem involves analyzing a motionless chain by cutting it into small segments and summing the external forces acting along its curve, concluding that the chain does not accelerate because the total external force is zero. The discussion highlights confusion regarding the justification of treating the chain as a rigid object, despite it being composed of multiple connected particles. Participants express difficulty in applying Newton's laws to the chain without modeling it as a series of point particles, complicating the analysis of internal forces. The necessity of considering the normal force and tension along the curve adds to the complexity, especially when determining the chain's movement. Ultimately, the integration of forces along the chain clarifies that if the ends are at the same height, the tangential acceleration is zero, confirming the chain's static state.
Adgorn
Messages
133
Reaction score
19
Homework Statement
A frictionless tube lies in the vertical plane and is in the shape of a function that has its endpoints at the same height but is otherwise arbitrary. A chain with uniform mass per unit length lies in the tube from end to end. Show, by considering the net force of gravity along the curve, that the chain does not move.
Relevant Equations
F=ma
In his solution, Morin solves the problem as the hint suggests: cutting the chain into small pieces, taking the component of the external forces along the curve (which is just the component of gravity here) and summing up an in integral, obtaining 0. He then claims that because the "total external force along the curve" is 0, that the chain will not move (accelerate) along the curve. The problem is I have no idea why this statement is justifiable.

Newton's laws (which are just barely introduced in this first chapter, so it seems that's all I am expected to work with here) say that if the net force on a point particle is 0, the particle will not accelerate. Here Morin seems to take a chain, which is basically a bunch of connected particles, and say that if the sum of the components of the forces on all particles along the curve vanishes, then the entire chain will not move along the curve, a statement which requires so many leaps of logic that I'm not sure how to begin deconstructing it. He summed up a bunch of different forces in a bunch of different directions and treated them as forces in a single direction "of the curve", treating the chain like a rigid object in 1-D space. I don't know how to start justifying this treatment without literally modeling the chain as a bunch of point particles connected by rods or springs and analyzing the internal forces to see how the force acting on a single point affects the entire chain.

I tried solving this problem without using this treatment but its proving difficult. It suffices to show the total force on the chain is 0, so that the center of mass does not move, meaning the chain does not move. This requires finding the normal force on each small piece of chain, which depends on the change in the direction and magnitude of the tension along the small piece, which in turn requires 2nd order approximation of the curve. This becomes rather convoluted, especially when I don't know a priori whether the chain actually moves or not.

At any rate, I was caught off guard by this nonchalant leap from forces on point particles to forces on pliable objects constrained to manifolds, so I would love some clarification here...
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016
Physics news on Phys.org
Adgorn said:
I don't know how to start justifying this treatment without literally modeling the chain as a bunch of point particles connected by rods or springs and analyzing the internal forces to see how the force acting on a single point affects the entire chain.
Consider a small segment of the chain. Let ##s## denote arc length along the chain, let ##T(s)## denote the tension in the chain as a function of arc length, let ##dN## denote the normal force that the tube exerts on the segment, and let ##dW## be the weight of the segment.

1642013042462.png


Show that Newton’s second law for the direction tangent to the segment may be written $$dT - \lambda g ds \sin \theta = (\lambda ds)a_t$$Here, ##dT = T(s+ds) – T(s)##. ##\lambda## is the linear mass density and ##a_t## is the tangential acceleration of the segment.

##a_t## is the same for all segments since we assume the chain cannot stretch.

You want to show that ##a_t## is zero if the two ends of the chain are at the same vertical height ##y##.

Try integrating the equation above from the left end of the chain to the right end of the chain and note that you can express ##ds \sin \theta## as ##dy##. What can you say about the tension at each end of the chain?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes member 731016, Adgorn and Lnewqban
TSny said:
Try integrating the equation above from the left end of the chain to the right end of the chain and note that you can express ##ds \sin \theta## as ##dy##. What can you say about the tension at each end of the chain?
That cleared it up. Thank you for the clear and illustrated answer!
 
  • Like
Likes member 731016 and TSny
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top