Measuring change in g with height (TV program many years ago)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on measuring the change in gravitational acceleration (g) with height, specifically comparing weights at ground level and atop tall structures like the Empire State Building. Participants reference various methods, including using a pendulum and a pocket milligram scale, to detect changes in weight due to altitude. The calculations indicate that for a height of 300 meters, the change in g is approximately 1 part in 1000, equating to a weight difference of about 0.001 N for a 1 kg mass. The conversation highlights the importance of precise measurements and unit consistency in gravitational experiments.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational acceleration (g) and its variations with height
  • Familiarity with basic physics concepts such as weight and mass
  • Knowledge of measurement techniques, including the use of scales and pendulums
  • Ability to perform unit conversions and dimensional analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of gravitational acceleration and its dependence on altitude
  • Learn about the physics of pendulum motion and how to measure time accurately
  • Explore the use of precision scales for measuring small weight differences
  • Investigate the von Jolly experiment and its relevance to measuring gravitational changes
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, educators, and anyone interested in experimental physics, particularly those exploring gravitational effects and measurement techniques.

CWatters
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
10,546
Reaction score
2,324
Bit of a long shot but can anyone remember a TV program where the presenter measured the weight of something at ground level and compared it to the weight at the top of a tall building, possibly the Empire State building? Sorry I can't recall more details. Think it was at least 10 years ago, possibly more.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No but I do remember one (a kid's show 3-2-1 contact maybe?) where they were traveling all over Great Britain to find the smallest value of g (it was latitude vs altitude vs nearby mass as I recall)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Growing up, I used to watch a wonderful science show on TV entitled Watch Mr. Wizard. it aired in the 1950s, and was presented by a great guy named Don Herbert.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and anorlunda
Upon Don Herbert's death in 2020 the late night host Stephen Colbert paid tribute in the best possible fashion. He performed my favorite Mr Wizard experiment: pulling a hard
boiled egg into a (now old fashioned) milk bottle using a flaming splint of paper to preheat the air. Splint afire, stuff it into bottle, egg on bottle, egg chortles as air expands, splint goes out, egg seals up like fat guy on toilet, kwump..egg in bottle.
I have admired Mr Colbert ever since.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Keith_McClary and Chestermiller
It's better to time 10 (or so) swings of a pendulum.
 
CWatters said:
Bit of a long shot but can anyone remember a TV program where the presenter measured the weight of something at ground level and compared it to the weight at the top of a tall building, possibly the Empire State building? Sorry I can't recall more details. Think it was at least 10 years ago, possibly more.
An episode of Myth Busters. Perhaps.
 
I think for a 100m difference in height you'd need a precise way to measure the time it takes a pendulum to swing ten times as the time difference would be on the order of hundreds of microseconds. Using an inexpensive pocket milligram scale would be far easier as the apparent weight would change by hundreds of milligrams for a 1kg mass. The Empire State building is taller than 100m but I think a scale would still be a lot easier to use.

Or maybe I did the math wrong...
 
For 300m tall, the change in g should go like $$2x300m/6Mm=100mg/kg$$
 
Last edited:
I think you are off by a factor of 10, that it's closer to 1g per kg @300m
 
  • #10
$$\begin{eqnarray*}
\Delta g&=&\frac{GM}{r^2}-\frac{GM}{(r+\delta)^2}\\
&=&\frac{GM}{r^2}-\frac{GM}{r^2(1+\delta/r)^2}\\
&=&g(1-(1+\delta/r)^{-2})\\
&\approx&2g\delta/r
\end{eqnarray*}$$So with ##\delta=300\mathrm{m}## and ##r=6400\mathrm{km}## I agree with @hutchphd, about one hundred parts per million for a 300m tall building.
 
  • #11
2 * 9.8 * 300 / 6,400,000 = 0.001 or 1 part in 1000.

What am I doing wrong?
 
  • #12
you want dg/g fam
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
  • #13
JT Smith said:
What am I doing wrong?
Multiplying by ##g##. The weight at the bottom and top of the tower is ##mg## and ##m(g-\Delta g)## respectively, so the fractional difference in weights is the difference, ##m\Delta g##, divided by the weight at the bottom. That's ##\Delta g/g=2\delta/r##.

You've calculated the change in ##g## - put your units in and you'll see it immediately!
 
  • #14
If I want to know the change in weight between the bottom and the top isn't that the difference that I'd be interested in calculating?
 
  • #15
JT Smith said:
If I want to know the change in weight between the bottom and the top isn't that the difference that I'd be interested in calculating?
If so, you need to be consistent with what you are measuring. The decrease in weight of a ##1\mathrm{kg}## mass is indeed ##2mg\delta/r\approx 0.001\mathrm{N}##, but the weight is ##10\mathrm{N}## so the ratio is one part in ten thousand. You seem to be comparing the reduction in weight to the mass, which isn't the same thing (or really meaningful at all).

I wasn't kidding about putting your units in. It won't always save you but it will usually flag up when you are doing something daft.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman
  • #16
Ibix said:
I wasn't kidding about putting your units in. It won't always save you but it will usually flag up when you are doing something daft.
What he said.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444 and Ibix
  • #17
The OP asked about a show where "the presenter measured the weight of something". He didn't say what the something was so I just took 1kg as a very possible "something" that one might use. For that mass the difference in measured weight on a scale between ground and 300m I believe would be roughly 1g. So for the specific example the units would be grams. But if generalized to any mass it would be grams per kg.

Sorry if I'm still being dense...

If you measured the difference with a scale what would you expect to see?
 
  • #18
JT Smith said:
For that mass the difference in measured weight on a scale between ground and 300m I believe would be roughly 1g.
No, it would be 0.1g, about 1mN.

The change in weight is ##mg×2\delta/r##. Work that out for a 1kg mass and you'll get approximately 0.001N. Divide that by ##g## to get the change in (apparent) mass. As far as I can tell you keep leaving out your units and calculating that ##mg×2\delta r\approx 0.001## and assuming that means 1g, not 1mN.

JT Smith said:
If you measured the difference with a scale what would you expect to see?
I would expect a reading of 10N (or 1kg) at the bottom to reduce to 9.999N (or 0.9999kg) at the top.
 
  • #19
Thanks, now I get it. I was treating the force as if it were grams, probably because it's so common to talk about weight that way. I should have known better but clearly I'm a twit.

It still looks easier to use a scale than a pendulum though. And I guess I'm a little surprised that it's something I could see on my $25 scale. Even a 30m height difference should be detectable. I'll have to try it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, Ibix and hutchphd
  • #20
We did the pendulum experiment at university and it turns out there's a 50m height difference across the undergrad lab. That, or undergrads aren't all the most careful experimentalists... o0)
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, hutchphd and DaveC426913
  • #21
Meir Achuz said:
It's better to time 10 (or so) swings of a pendulum.
For noticing a change in g, yes, but to find the actual value you would have to be able to precisely measure the length of the pendulum!.
 
  • #22
Hi, look for this paper, specially the von Jolly experiment with a double balance.

Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88, 111101 (2017)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K