Are these torques correct for a simple balancing/fulcrum exp

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics lab experiment involving static equilibrium and torque calculations using a ruler balanced on a fulcrum. Participants confirm that torque is calculated by multiplying the force by the distance from the fulcrum, and that the torques should cancel out when the ruler is balanced. There is a suggestion that the user may have recorded a weight or dimension incorrectly, particularly questioning the accuracy of a 5.2N measurement. The conversation highlights the importance of double-checking measurements and calculations in experiments. Accurate data is crucial for confirming the principles of static equilibrium.
Robert Parsons
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


For my physics lab, they had us do a simple static equilibrium experiment where we rested a ruler on a fulcrum (at its center of mass) and then attached varying amounts of weight on either end at different distances from the fulcrum. This screenshot is the data we recorded (F1 is the weight of Mass 1 in Newtons, and the same for F2):

Untitled_2.jpg


Homework Equations


I believe the torque is supposed to be calculated by multiplying the magnitude of the force by the distance from the fulcrum, correct? And if that's right, then shouldn't the two torques cancel out since the ruler was balanced when the weights were added to it? Any help would be very much appreciated! Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Robert Parsons said:
I believe the torque is supposed to be calculated by multiplying the magnitude of the force by the distance from the fulcrum, correct?

Correct.

And if that's right, then shouldn't the two torques cancel out since the ruler was balanced when the weights were added to it?

Correct. My guess is you wrote down a weight or dimension incorrectly or made a calculating error somewhere.
 
Are you sure about the 5.2N? That's a 53g mass. I'll bet it was 50g.
 
I think you meant 530g and 500g but good call.
 
CWatters said:
I think you meant 530g and 500g but good call.
Thanks, well spotted.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top