- #1
ago01
- 46
- 8
I had a homework question recently where I had gotten a bosun chair question wrong. It is the exact question found in this youtube video (with the values changed).
I am struggling to understand the way 2T is arrived at here (though I do understand this is an example of mechanical advantage). In my analysis the only difference I had was I had simply assumed that the tension was the same throughout, arriving at exactly T force being needed to lift the chair (no mechanical advantage).
But there is a reaction force I apparently forgot. When the bosun chair rider pulls the cable down it imposes a force (obviously). Then it also imposes a force on the chair. I had wrapped these all up into tension under the (bad) assumption that it was only the tension causing the bosun chair to lift up, and the force being applied to pull the chair up was making the rope taut, therefore transferring that force directly to the bosun chair. So under this (wrong) assumption the pull force imposed a tension in the line, the reaction force was the "pull tension" felt by the chair. Since the rope is massless and the pulley is deal the tension is the same throughout. I hope you can see how I am puzzled.
But in the analysis in this youtube video there is in fact two forces at play here. One tension and one push force each of them having a pivotal role in lifting the chair with mechanical advantage.
Even more confusing is how the mechanical advantage is eliminated if a coworker instead lifts the chair. It appears all the mechanical advantage is derived from lifting yourself!
Do I misunderstand tension? In other problems, such as boxes pulling each other on inclines, or pulling a string of boxes together and calculating their individual cable tensions, or two masses on a pulley with one falling under gravity I assumed it was the tension doing the moving here because if the string went limp nothing would move. This was reinforced by tension being sufficient to solve these problems, I suppose. But it appears not to be the case here and I am trying to differentiate them in my head.
I am struggling to understand the way 2T is arrived at here (though I do understand this is an example of mechanical advantage). In my analysis the only difference I had was I had simply assumed that the tension was the same throughout, arriving at exactly T force being needed to lift the chair (no mechanical advantage).
But there is a reaction force I apparently forgot. When the bosun chair rider pulls the cable down it imposes a force (obviously). Then it also imposes a force on the chair. I had wrapped these all up into tension under the (bad) assumption that it was only the tension causing the bosun chair to lift up, and the force being applied to pull the chair up was making the rope taut, therefore transferring that force directly to the bosun chair. So under this (wrong) assumption the pull force imposed a tension in the line, the reaction force was the "pull tension" felt by the chair. Since the rope is massless and the pulley is deal the tension is the same throughout. I hope you can see how I am puzzled.
But in the analysis in this youtube video there is in fact two forces at play here. One tension and one push force each of them having a pivotal role in lifting the chair with mechanical advantage.
Even more confusing is how the mechanical advantage is eliminated if a coworker instead lifts the chair. It appears all the mechanical advantage is derived from lifting yourself!
Do I misunderstand tension? In other problems, such as boxes pulling each other on inclines, or pulling a string of boxes together and calculating their individual cable tensions, or two masses on a pulley with one falling under gravity I assumed it was the tension doing the moving here because if the string went limp nothing would move. This was reinforced by tension being sufficient to solve these problems, I suppose. But it appears not to be the case here and I am trying to differentiate them in my head.