Jump to content
koti

Single pulley and weight.

Recommended Posts

Obviously S ≠ F in the below example due to efficiency loss in friction. How do I calculate the exact efficiency of this simple system?
Lets say F=1kg, gravity is 1G, the rope is non elastic and the angles are straight like in the graphic. Lets assume the pulley and rope diameter to be some values which are easiest for calculations. 

 

Bez nazwy-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, koti said:

Obviously S ≠ F in the below example due to efficiency loss in friction. How do I calculate the exact efficiency of this simple system?
Lets say F=1kg, gravity is 1G, the rope is non elastic and the angles are straight like in the graphic. Lets assume the pulley and rope diameter to be some values which are easiest for calculations. 

 

Bez nazwy-1.jpg

I assume you are defining efficiency for this in terms of force or work. So take the ratio of the weight and the force you need to exert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, swansont said:

I assume you are defining efficiency for this in terms of force or work. So take the ratio of the weight and the force you need to exert

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

https://www.kullabs.com/classes/subjects/units/lessons/notes/note-detail/1096

 

Key words in this context  are

Velocity Ratio

Mechanical Advantage

Efficiency

Lets assume S=1kg and I am gripping the F rope and pulling it down - how much more of force than 1kg do I need to apply with my arm to lift.

i understand that there are factors to take into account Im just not sure if I get all of them (what I listet in initial post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, koti said:

 

Lets assume S=1kg and I am gripping the F rope and pulling it down - how much more of force than 1kg do I need to apply with my arm to lift.

1 kg isn't a force. The weight would be 9.8 N (F = W = mg)

Absent any friction, only an infinitesimal amount more initially, and after, 9.8 N. There doesn’t need to be a net force to move at constant velocity. So you need to exert a force equal to the weight while lifting.

If there is friction, you need to exert the weight + frictional force 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

1 kg isn't a force. The weight would be 9.8 N (F = W = mg)

Absent any friction, only an infinitesimal amount more initially, and after, 9.8 N. There doesn’t need to be a net force to move at constant velocity. So you need to exert a force equal to the weight while lifting.

If there is friction, you need to exert the weight + frictional force 

 

 

This is clear. How do I calculate the frictional force in this particular case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frictional force is typically negligible in this instance. What you need is the mechanical advantage of the pulley. Calculate the force needed to lift the weight then divide by the mechanical advantage. That will get your effort force the first calc your load resistance force then apply your efficiency equation.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, koti said:

This is clear. How do I calculate the frictional force in this particular case?

If it’s the only other force involved, then compare the force needed to lift vs the weight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 11:44 AM, Mordred said:

Frictional force is typically negligible in this instance. What you need is the mechanical advantage of the pulley. Calculate the force needed to lift the weight then divide by the mechanical advantage. That will get your effort force the first calc your load resistance force then apply your efficiency equation.

As the only pulley is fixed, there is no mechanical advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

As the only pulley is fixed, there is no mechanical advantage.

I left that for the OP to determine,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mordred said:

I left that for the OP to determine,

It seemed he knew that, and was focused on the friction, which would account for the difference between the S and F force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt it was more appropriate to not assume he was aware of the pulley ratio to number of ropes on load side rule of thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I felt it was more appropriate to not assume he was aware of the pulley ratio to number of ropes on load side rule of thumb.

Fair enough. I don't expect this is homework though. Koti has been around for quite a while.

Assuming he is looking for a realistic estimate, it comes down to making the right assumptions and some engineering tables.

...or experimenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I felt it was more appropriate to not assume he was aware of the pulley ratio to number of ropes on load side rule of thumb.

I know this might come in as a surprise to you but I knew that :P 

48 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Fair enough. I don't expect this is homework though. Koti has been around for quite a while.

Assuming he is looking for a realistic estimate, it comes down to making the right assumptions and some engineering tables.

...or experimenting.

Technically its' never too late for homework but youre right, t's not for my school project ;) 
Yes, experimenting - I think its my inner self trying to subcionsciously get me back into a gym.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, koti said:

Yes, experimenting - I think its my inner self trying to subcionsciously get me back into a gym.

Are you building a Nautilus machine, or is this to help get you up off the couch? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, koti said:

I know this might come in as a surprise to you but I knew that :P 


 

Lol no it's not a surprise, but I hate assumptions. I lost track of the number of times I assumed something should be obvious to an OP then surprised when they didn't know the basics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol no it's not a surprise, but I hate assumptions. I lost track of the number of times I assumed something should be obvious to an OP then surprised when they didn't know the basics.

...a few years ago, I had to explain decay modes of pion meson to Nobel prize winner in physics...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.