Equilibrium Experiments

beat backTo investigate the theory of counterpoise via the completion of two experiments which rely on the use of equations TPLcos? +TPMcos?, which set up be rewritten as (Mass Ag) cos?+(Mass Bg) cos?. For the second part of the investigation I will try to show the equation (W*x)/d + weightiness of a prescript.IntroductionIn this investigation I will look at come out of the closet two experiments, which in each case will prove a different candidate of the theory of equilibrium. There are two theories I wish to prove. The first is tension (Tpl) in the chain of mountains 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 sum of the vertical components of these two tensions must be equal to the weight of c. Which means that Tpl cos? + Tpmcos? = MassCg which can be written as (MassAg) cos ? +(MassBg) cos ? = MassCg (equ 1)Also the moment of a force rough a dismantle is equal to the magnitude of the force x its pe rpendicular distance from the pivot. For equilibrium, the moment of the weight about the pivot will be equal to the moment in the opposite direction payable to the weight of the ruler. Therefore (W*x)= weight of the ruler times distance dWeight of ruler = (W*x)/d. (equ 2) diagramMethod for experiment a1. Set up the arrangement shown in figure 1, check that the point p is in equilibrium.2. Note the tax of masses A, B, and C and measure the angles LPO ? and MPO ?.3. Keep masses A and B constant and note the new value of angles ? and ? fordifferent values of mass C4. ledger results in tabular from.Method for experiment b1. Set up apparatus as in fig 2.2. Find point of equilibrium.3. Note value for the mass used and the distances x and d.4. Repeat depart two stages for several sets of masses and record results in tabular formCalculationThese where done on paper by hand for ease of presentationError AnalysisI rent generated my errors on the fact that I thought that I could unaccomp anied read the I choose the error of. The port in which I got the final tell 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 little 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 entrap that the gap was quite large. And that I was quite close to the true 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 stand true. In the aim I set out to have 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. Pr oblems with this experiment the main problem 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 boundary line 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 putting the numbers through the approach pattern 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 average this value was 0.119g, which is only about 7% away form the real mass of 0.128g.on far analysis and after calculating the upper and lower 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 enough value to affect the results a significant wa y. Therefore finally I found that 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.