Duplication of the Cavendish experiment of 1798

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pioneer1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Cavendish experiment of 1798, specifically questioning whether Cavendish measured the gravitational constant G. Participants explore the experimental setup, assumptions, and implications of the experiment, with a focus on the nature of forces involved and the potential for duplicating the experiment.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that Cavendish did not measure G, suggesting that the equilibrium assumed in the experiment between linear restoring force and the inverse square gravitational force is unphysical.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the claim that a linear force cannot balance an inverse square force, pointing out that the restoring force is linear in terms of the angle and that the gravitational force is dependent on distance.
  • A different participant highlights that the two occurrences of "r" in the discussion refer to different contexts, suggesting that balance points can exist between the forces.
  • Some participants propose that the Cavendish experiment has been successfully repeated by many, challenging the assertion that it is fundamentally flawed.
  • One participant presents a mathematical argument to illustrate that a linear force cannot balance an inverse square force, asserting that the gravitational force will always exceed the linear force in the context of the experiment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus. There are competing views on the validity of the Cavendish experiment and whether it accurately measures G. Disagreement exists regarding the nature of the forces involved and the assumptions made in the experiment.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions underlying the Cavendish experiment, particularly regarding the balance of forces. The discussion includes references to specific equations and contexts that may not be universally agreed upon.

  • #31
A computation of G from the Cavendish experiment data

Hi,

I used original data from the Cavendish experiment to compute the value of G. My preliminary computation yielded a value for G 2.67 times greater than the recommended value:

G(Cavendish) = 1.78424*10^-7 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1

G(recommended) = 6.67428*10^-8 cm^3 sec^-2 g^-1

I used the well-known method of equating the torque of torsion wire (k theta) and the torque of gravity (GMmL/s^2) and solving for G:

G = k theta s^2 / MmL

k = torsion constant = 724.68 g cm^2 sec^-2
theta = excursion angle from mid-point = 0.0054788 radians
s = distance between weights = 21.97 cm
M = big weight = 158100 g
m = small weight = 729.8 g
L = gyration arm = 93.09 cm

More information about the geometry of the experiment can be found in my wiki.

I would be grateful for any corrections and comments. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Sorry I didn't realize you deleted this thread. I thought it didn't go through. I just saw your message now.

Please be advised that this is a different topic than my previous ones. I would appreciate any comments regarding the computations. Thanks again.
 
  • #33
Doc Al said:
Why are you changing variables in the middle of the discussion? Realize the restoring torque can be written as:
\tau = k' \theta

Ok but, I realized that if we equate the restoring force kr to GMm/r^2 as we have been talking about dimensions do not match. We need to use torque not force.

k theta = GMmL/r^2

Is this correct?

This seems to relate to what I posted today about the calculation of G from the Cavendish data. (It was moved to this thread.) There is a discrepancy of about 2.5 and I think I am missing something relating to this issue. Would you be able to take a look at that computation?

Thanks again for helping with this.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
I've made some progress with this stuff with the help of folks at sci.math and sci.physics.research. I am grateful to everyone here as well for helping. I have another question relating to the solution of the equation of motion.

The equation of motion is

Iy'' + Ry' + ky = C/(a -yd)^2

Primes indicate time derivatives.

y = theta = the angle of excursion
I = moment of inertia
R = damping
k = torsion
d = moment arm
C = 2GMmd
a = distance between weights
yd = angular distance between weights in radians

The simpler solution is to linearize this by writing it as

Iy'' + Ry' + ky = C/a^2

Then the solution is

y(t) = A cos(wt) (e^-t/tau) + B/w

A = amplitude
w = omega_0^2
B = 2GMmd/Ia^2


I also got a numerical solution for the non-linear equation that can be seen in the sci.math thread. Now I want to compare the two to see if linearizing the equation is justified.

Two problems. The non-linear solution has the initial conditions y(0) = 0 and y'(0) = 0. And in the non-linear solution we neglected the damping term by setting it to zero.

But the linear solution includes the damping term and does not have the same initial conditions. So I cannot compare them at this point.

I was wondering if someone can help with solving the linear equation without the damping term

Iy'' + ky = 2GMmd/a^2

for initial conditions y(0) = 0 and y'(0) = 0.

The values of the constants are included in the sci.math thread.

I appreciate your help. Many thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
9K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
11K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
420
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K