Tension in a Massive Rotating Rope with an Object

In summary, the conversation is discussing the problem of finding the tension in a uniform rope attached to a rotating shaft and a point-like object, as a function of the distance from the shaft. The problem assumes that the radius of the shaft is much smaller than the length of the rope and that the effect of gravity can be ignored. The conversation also mentions the use of variables such as m_1, m_2, omega, r, and l to express the answer. Further discussion involves the use of equations for tension and radial acceleration, as well as the concept of integrating over an arbitrary element of the rope. There is also confusion about the relationship between l and r, and the next steps in solving the problem.
  • #36
haruspex said:
Looking back through the thread, unless I misunderstand how the variables are defined, the equation of mine you quoted in post #31 is wrong. It has a sign error.
See if you can correct it.
(I believe T(0) should be the tension at the pole if we ignore the point mass.)

Also, what do you have for T(0)?
For T(0) I have ##T(0)=-m_1\omega^2l##
Should this be a positive value?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
AzimD said:
For T(0) I have ##T(0)=-m_1\omega^2l##
Should this be a positive value?
As I understand it, we are considering "tension" ##T(r)## in the sense of "the force from the anchored direction on the remainder of the cable from point ##r## on out"

As I understand it, we are adopting a sign convention in which outward is positive and inward is negative.

If so, then ##T(0)## would properly be negative. The rope is being pulled inward.

However, ##-m_1 \omega^2 l## would be correct for a mass rotating in a circular trajectory at radius ##l##. What is the relevant rotational radius for mass ##m_1## here?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
jbriggs444 said:
As I understand it, we are considering "tension" ##T(r)## in the sense of "the force from the anchored direction on the remainder of the cable from point ##r## on out"

As I understand it, we are adopting a sign convention in which outward is positive and inward is negative.

If so, then ##T(0)## would properly be negative. The rope is being pulled inward.
That works, but then I would not call it tension (nor label it T). To me, tension is a state, not a force. It is more like a pair of equal and opposite forces at a point, or a distribution of such pairs along a body. A suitable sign convention for that would be positive for a tension and negative for a compression - or the converse.
 
  • Like
Likes jbriggs444
  • #39
haruspex said:
That works, but then I would not call it tension (nor label it T).
Yes. I'd drafted a paragraph pontificating on how tension is more properly a scalar or a portion of a tensor rather than a vector-valued force, but then discarded it as more confusing than helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes SammyS
  • #40
jbriggs444 said:
As I understand it, we are considering "tension" ##T(r)## in the sense of "the force from the anchored direction on the remainder of the cable from point ##r## on out"

As I understand it, we are adopting a sign convention in which outward is positive and inward is negative.

If so, then ##T(0)## would properly be negative. The rope is being pulled inward.

However, ##-m_1 \omega^2 l## would be correct for a mass rotating in a circular trajectory at radius ##l##. What is the relevant rotational radius for mass ##m_1## here?
##T(0)## for ##m_1## would be at length ##l## no? Of course, the force caused by ##m_2## isn't added in because I come back to add that in later.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top