Lab 7 (torque) - Seventh lab report in Sup\'s course PDF

Preview

Summary

Seventh lab report in Sup's course...

Description

Individual Report: Torque Analysis of Results: The results were expected in that our theoretical values for mass and distance were close to our experimental values to keep the meter stick in equilibrium. Our error for the distance measurement with one mass on each side was 15%, 0%, 7.5%, and 4.7% for the masses of 50 g, 100 g, 200 g, and 300 g respectively. For two masses on one side the error in mass was 7.3%. For the unbalanced meter stick the error in mass was 6.5%. For the unbalanced meter stick with an upward force the error in mass was 1.3%. For the upward force at an angle of 60° the error was 0.0023%. This experiment was valid because we accomplished the experiment objective of predicting and finding the conditions of equilibrium for the meter stick. The major trend in the data was that our theoretical values were all larger than the experimental values, if there was a difference, with the exception of one mass on each side measurement at mass 200 g and 300 g. The practical implications of these results are that it has become easier to understand/see how masses and the distance those masses are from the pivot point influence the equilibrium of that object on the pivot point. Actually observing this phenomenon of torque in real life and not just in equations or simulations helps me to understand the way it affects objects in the world around me. Improvement: The major sources of error in this experiment came from our assumptions in the experiment. In reality the exact center of mass on the meter stick and clamps we hung masses from were not perfectly in the middle and they did not have all their mass concentrated onto one point, which is what the equations we used to make theoretical predictions were based on. It would have been difficult to improve upon this error given what we have available in lab, although since we had extra time, if were to have substituted our meter stick for another from a different group, we could have effectively had additional trials and obtained more accurate data that accounted for some of the systematic error in the experiment. The additional trials would have given us more accurate data since random errors would be improved upon. This could have lowered the error by obtaining values closer to those predicted theoretically so a smaller difference would be obtained and then when divided by the same theoretical predicted value and multiplied by 100, the error would be smaller according to the equation for error: (theoretical value-experimental value)/theoretical value x 100. Individual Questions: To answer the theory exercise question, our data does support that the sum of the torques is always zero for a system in equilibrium. Our percent error, as noted above, was relatively small and given the error was due to systematic error, it can be inferred that as far as real-life experimentation goes the forces were essentially balanced when the meter stick was in equilibrium. In our physics 111 laboratory we got about as accurate results as realistically possible and so the sum of torque forces on the meter stick were basically zero at equilibrium....