## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Pulleys are well-known simple machines which can be used to reduce lifting force. The figure below shows (left to right) 1:1, 2:1, and 4:1 pulleys.

Y m X F m m

Let us derive the required lifting force for each pulley. The figure below shows (left to right) free-body diagrams (FBDs) for the 1:1, 2:1, and 4:1 pulleys.

F

F

R F1 F1

R F1 F1

R

W

F

F F1

F F1

W

F2

F2

F2

W

1:1 Pulley. For the left FBD above, from static balance the cable tension lifting the weight must equal the lifting force: F W mg . Then from equating the sum of Y forces to zero, R F W 2mg . This pulley does not reduce the required lifting weight. 2:1 Pulley. For the left of the center two FBDs above, from static balance the cable tension F1 lifting the weight is only half of the weight since one end of the rope is tied to the frame: 2 F1 W mg and so F1 mg / 2 . The right of the center two FBDs above is similar to that of the 1:1 pulley; since the rope is cut for drawing FBDs, the same F1 acts down on this FBD as shown (equal & opposite forces from Newton’s Third Law). Therefore, the lifting force is F F1 mg / 2 . Further, R F F1 mg . The total reaction force on the frame is Rtot R F1 3mg / 2 . This pulley cuts the required lifting weight in two.

4:1 Pulley. The left-most of the right three FBDs above is similar to the left FBD of the 2:1 pulley above: 2 F2 W mg and so F2 mg / 2 . Since the F2 rope is attached to the middle pulley, rope tension F1 may be found from: 2 F1 F2 and so F1 F2 / 2 mg / 4 . The right-most of the right three FBDs above is similar to that of the 1:1 pulley; since the rope is cut for drawing FBDs, the same F1 acts down on this FBD as shown (equal & opposite forces from Newton’s Third Law). Therefore, the lifting force is F F1 mg / 4 . Further, R F F1 mg / 2 . The total reaction force on the frame is Rtot R F1 F2 5mg / 4 . This pulley cuts the required lifting weight in four. Comparing the total reaction force on the frame for all three pulleys, we see that increased mechanical advantage also reduces the frame reaction force: this reaction force must be the weight, plus the lifting force F. As F is reduced, so is the total frame reaction. Obviously, a simple machine cannot reduce work, it can only reduce the input force effort. The tradeoff for reduced F in these pulleys is more rope must be pulled: the 2:1 pulley must pull twice as much rope as the 1:1 pulley, and the 4:1 pulley must pull four times as much rope as the 1:1 pulley. In all three cases the work (force times distance) will theoretically be the same. User chooses: Computer sets: Visualize: 1:1, 2:1, or 4:1 pulley m = 10 kg, g = 9.81 m /s2, (in the –Y direction). pulley lifting mass

Numerical Display: F, R, F1, F2, Rtot User Feels: Lifting force F

Examples: 1:1 Pulley 2:1 Pulley 4:1 Pulley

To lift the 10 kg mass 1 m against gravity (98.1 Nm of work), the results are: F 98.10 N, Rtot R 196.20 N, Lrope 1 m F F1 49.05 N, R 98.10 N, Rtot 147.15 N, Lrope 2 m F2 49.05 N, F F1 24.52 N, R 49.05 N, Rtot 122.62 N, Lrope 4 m

- Oxy Acetylene Welding and Cutting
- TTS Marine Cranes Brochure
- Hydraulic Symbols
- Pulley System
- Calulating Submerged Weight
- Technical Drawing Design
- Pulley
- MESSAGE 29TH MAY 2016.ppt
- Pipe in Pipe Modelling
- Pulley Systems _ Ropebook
- Crane
- Pulley Mechanics
- Skid Weigh
- Hydraulic Symbols
- 31 MSc Subsea Engineering
- Classical t Pulleys En
- Bexco Marine Leaflet A4
- 1.3.2 Forces MS.pdf
- Problems and Solutions on Friction
- Manual de Calculo NORD
- Lecture 8 Joint Forces II
- TM_1B_Ch6e
- sheet no.2
- Unit 2 -ReviewPackage Multiple ChoiceSolution
- Section 2
- General Cable_Cable Pulling Info
- hints_s_05
- Webbing Sling
- Assignment
- Physics Curriculum

Skip carousel

- tmpC1DB.tmp
- Hutchinson Mfg. Co. v. Mayrath, 192 F.2d 110, 10th Cir. (1951)
- Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U.S. 408 (1883)
- David Cohn v. Coleco Industries, Inc., 558 F.2d 53, 2d Cir. (1977)
- Additional reports by Neal Mitchell Associates
- As 2001.2.7-1987 Methods of Test for Textiles Physical Tests - Determination of Breaking Force and Extension

Skip carousel

- Marines and Helicopters 1962-1973
- Quiet Cruise Effi Cient Short Take-Off and Landing Subsonic Transport System (PDF)
- R/C Soaring Digest - Apr 2004
- National Advisory for Aeronautics (1944)
- Manitou ME Pop (EN)
- R/C Soaring Digest - Mar 2004
- Aeroplanes by Zerbe, James Slough, 1850-
- R/C Soaring Digest - Jun 2002
- Army Aviation Digest - Apr 1958
- ITS Co. v. Essex Co., 272 U.S. 429 (1926)
- Air Suspended Vehicle for Internal Transportation Purpose
- R/C Soaring Digest - May 2012
- Follow on Experiments Project Mercury Capsules
- British Airships, Past, Present, and Future by Whale, George
- R/C Soaring Digest - Oct 2007
- R/C Soaring Digest - Feb 2006
- R/C Soaring Digest - Jul 2010
- The Aeroplane SpeaksFifth Edition by Barber, H. (Horatio), 1875-1964
- Army Aviation Digest - Sep 1955
- Birdmen
- Bring It Up v. Pure Style
- R/C Soaring Digest - Jun 2003
- CESTOL
- R/C Soaring Digest - Sep 2009
- Manitou MI 40 50 (EN)
- R/C Soaring Digest - Jul 2003
- Army Aviation Digest - Sep 1960
- R/C Soaring Digest - Mar 2003
- A Review on Design Optimization of Air Dam for Lift Reduction of a Car Using in Wind Tunnel and CFD Analysis
- R/C Soaring Digest - Apr 2010

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading