Wednesday, February 20, 2019
AimTo investigate the theory of equilibrium via the completion of dickens experiments which rely on the use of equations TPL romaine? +TPMcos?, which can be rewritten as (Mass Ag) cos?+(Mass Bg) cos?. For the second part of the investigation I will pronounce to prove the equation (W*x)/d + cargo of a normal.IntroductionIn this investigation I will carry out two experiments, which in each case will prove a different fount of the theory of equilibrium. There are two theories I wish to prove. The maiden is strain (Tpl) in the string Pl is equal to the weight of A and tension in the string pm (Tpm) is equal to the weight of B. For equilibrium the substance of the vertical components of these two tensions must be equal to the weight of c. Which delegacy that Tpl cos? + Tpmcos? = MassCg which can be written as (MassAg) cos ? +(MassBg) cos ? = MassCg (equ 1)Also the minute of arc of a force about a top is equal to the magnitude of the force x its perpendicular distance from the p ivot. For equilibrium, the min of the weight about the pivot will be equal to the moment in the opposite direction due to the weight of the ruler. Therefore (W*x)= weight of the ruler times distance dWeight of ruler = (W*x)/d. (equ 2)platMethod for experiment a1. Set up the arrangement shown in figure 1, check that the point p is in equilibrium.2. Note the foster of cumuluses A, B, and C and measure the bungs LPO ? and MPO ?.3. Keep masses A and B constant and none the new value of angles ? and ? fordifferent values of mass C4. Record results in tabular from.Method for experiment b1. Set up apparatus as in fig 2.2. demote point of equilibrium.3. Note value for the mass used and the distances x and d.4. assume last two stages for several sets of masses and record results in tabular formCalculationThese where done on paper by strive for ease of presentationError AnalysisI pose generated my errors on the fact that I thought that I could besides read the I choose the error of. The way in which I got the final resolving out was to run through the calculation twice, once with the answer I got the error and then again this time with the answer I got + the error. I think that in the first experiment I was a piddling over the top with the error. I said that I could read the angle to about 5. But when I did the calculation again with the new values. I put that the gap was quite large. And that I was quite closing to the reliable value and that although the value did fall in the gap, the gap could have been a lot smaller. This say to me that the error need not have been so large, and that I read the angle quite well.For exp BConclusionIn conclusion I have found out that equ 1 pedestal true. In the aim I set out to see if I could prove it I have put in all the results. The answers I get out are generally good. They are the same as the mass or in the cases were they are not they are close and fall well in the range of the errors. Problems with this experim ent the main fuss I had with this experiment is the way I was told to find the angle. This way was not that accurate. It left a large margin for error. This is some of the anomalies may have crept in.For the second of the two experiments I found that the mass of the ruler was 0.128g. This was obtained by weighting the ruler on a set of scales. After place the numbers through the formula for weight of ruler, and then dividing the output by g, which was 10, I managed to get a value for the mass of the ruler. On comely this value was 0.119g, which is only about 7% away form the sincere mass of 0.128g.on farther analysis and after calculating the upper and cut back bounds by changing the results by adding or subtracting the errors I found that the outcome from adding the errors to the results and the outcome from subtracting the errors was the same, 0.119g.This meant that the error was not a large complete value to affect the results a significant way. Therefore finally I found th at the mass on the ruler to 0.119g this is 7% out for the value, which I recorded as the mass for the ruler. The reason for this is unknown. I can only guess to the reason. One possibility is the mass I recorded for the ruler was out. And as my results are so consistent this is a large possibility.