Measuring Mass with a Triple Beam Balance

  • Thread starter Thread starter harimakenji
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balance Beam
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the proper measurement of mass using a triple beam balance and whether it's feasible to have two identical scales on the device. One participant suggests that the reading of 128 grams could be correct if the balance functions by summing torques. However, concerns are raised about the practicality of having two identical scales, as it may limit the measurement range for heavier objects. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the context and configuration of the scales in use. Ultimately, clarity on the balance's design is needed to confirm the accuracy of the measurement.
harimakenji
Messages
89
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


what is the measurement
110.jpg



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Is there something wrong with the picture or is it possible to have beam balance with two same scales (the upper and middle ones). If possible then the reading = 90 + 30 + 8 = 128 g ??

Thank you very much
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure, why not? Okay, I'll admit that I don't know exactly how beam balances work, but if it works as different torques correlated to forces then all its doing is summing torques and then telling you how those torques would relate to mass.
 
I don't fully understand what you mean. The pointer just shows the mass of the object when the beam is balanced. If it is possible to have a beam balance like that, then I guess I got the correct answer?

Thank you very much
 
Sorry, but I don't fully understand what you mean. Why do you think it is not possible?
 
Mindscrape said:
Sorry, but I don't fully understand what you mean. Why do you think it is not possible?

because I think one of the scales (upper or lower one) should be in hundreds. I never encountered a problem which had the same scales and I also think that it is not very useful if the beam balance has two same scales because it can not be used to measure an object which mass is in several hundreds term (maybe around 300 gram above)
 
It all depends on the context. I think that the ones not being completely accounted for is the stranger part than having 30-50 and 50-100. It's a possible scale, and without context who knows why it is configured in this manner.
 
OK, I am just afraid that the scales have different meaning, such as the middle must be multiply by 10, so the reading should be 300 instead of 30. But maybe I am just overthinking about it.

Thank you very much
 
Back
Top