.Solving the Physics of a Seesaw Catapult

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the physics of a seesaw catapult, specifically how to calculate the necessary parameters for launching a hacky sack to a specific distance and height. The original poster seeks to determine the weight and height from which a mass must be dropped to achieve the required launch velocity, factoring in the seesaw's arm lengths and the effects of torque. Key points include the importance of calculating the force needed to bring the seesaw to equilibrium and the relationship between potential energy, kinetic energy, and torque in the system. Participants emphasize the need to consider the moment of inertia of the seesaw arms and the impact of gravity on the system's dynamics. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity of the calculations involved in the project and the necessity of understanding fundamental physics concepts to successfully execute the experiment.
  • #101
Ha i just realized the distance from the stool is 2.5 m the height is the same. So I'll probably need to do a 60-70 degree launch. Also as part of the project we need expert advice, and if it's okay with you, we may use you as one of our experts since you are majoring in physics. You wouldn't have to do anything, you've already done enough i'd just have to find a way to make this work since i'd need a signature. I'll talk to my teacher and see what I can do, I'll contact you when i find anything out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
I feel so important. I'm very very far from an expert, an expert could atleast quantify the effect of angular impulse on this system. Did you ever solve for the value of v above?
 
  • #103
I'm working on it right this second, I had to change all my calculations to account for the REAL weight of the hacky (approx 50 grams) the new distance from the stool (2.5m) so I have an angle of about 77 now and I'll be back here soon to post my results for the V of the falling object.
 
  • #104
I'm getting VERY low velocities, maybe it's right, I'll see what you have to say.

The mass I may use will be 1 kg.

The Torque required to launch the hack (.05kg) at a rate of 7.85674 m/s is 11.0219 Nm

The pine wood I'm using is 381 grams for a 50 cm long piece.

.30504kg for longer board

.07626kg for shorter board

\tau_{grav} = \tau_{left} + \tau_{right}

\tau_{grav} = (.30504kg)(9.8)\frac{.4m}{2} - (.07626kg)(9.8)\frac{.1m}{2}

\tau_{netgrav} = .560511 Nm

Torque of Hacky Sack

\tau_{hackysack} = (.05)(9.8)(.4m)

\tau_{hackysack} = .196 Nm

Torque Required to launch hacky at 7.85674 m/s

KE = \frac {1}{2}m(v^2)

Ke = .5 (.05)(7.85674^2)

Ke = 1.54307

W = \tau\theta

1.54307 = \tau (.14\pi) (.14 pi is 25 degrees in radians, 25 degrees is the new sweep angle cause of the new launch angle)

\tau_{launch} = 11.0219

Total Clock Wise Torque (negative torque):

\tau_{clockwise} = -11.8157Nm


Counter Clockwise Torque (gravity on the board is included as a net torque above, so we don't need to worry about that)

\tau_{counter} = \tau_{obj} + \tau_{imp}

\tau_{counter} = (1kg)(9.8)(.1m) + \frac {(1kg)(V)}{.01}

11.8157985(clockwise torque) - .98(torque of obj) = \frac {V}{.01}

V = .108356 m/s

Does that seem small for a 1kg weight, considering everything?
 
Last edited:
  • #105
I'm not sure if its too small, just try it and see. Notice though your dropping a really heavy object in comparison to your hackysack. It makes perfect sense that it won't need to be going very fast to launch an object 20x smaller with a 4x mechanical advantage. Actually come to think of it, target momentum is (mv)_{hs} = (0.05)(7.85) = 0.3925kgm/s [/tex], and impact momentum is (mv)_{kg} = (1)(.108) [/tex], mechanical advantage is 4x, so <br /> <br /> 4(mv)_{kg} ~~ (mv)_{hs} which is almost true!<br /> <br /> \tau_{grav} = (.30504kg)(9.8)\frac{.4m}{2} - (.07626kg)(9.8)\frac{.1m}{2}<br /> <br /> Just one thing:<br /> Define a direction of positive torque. I'm guessing from convention that counterclockwise (the long board rising) is positive, but here you say that the torque from gravity is positive, but its acting in a clockwise direction.<br /> <br /> Aside from that ,everything looks fantastic, I didnt check your math but I don't see a reason to.
 
  • #106
I say the torque of gravity is positive, but then when i add it to the other clockwise torques, i make it negative you see?


Anyways, height i'd have to drop the mass:

\Delta x = \frac {1}{2}a(t^2)

V = at + Vo

t = \frac {.108356m/s}{9.8m/s}

t = .011056 sec

\Delta x = \frac {1}{2}(9.8 m/s)(.011056^2)

\Delta x = .000599 m THhat is .05 cm high that i would need to drop the 1 kg... eh? something might be wrong.


IT doesn't make sense because if I re-calculate it with a mass falling of only 50 grams (same mass as the hacky sack) then it only needs a 2.3502 velocity to launch a 50 gram hacky at 7.85 m/s, lift an arm 4 times heavier than it, 20 degrees, i don't know. I think our clockwise torques are just fine based on basic definitions of torque etc... Unless our launch torque is wrong. I think something is more likely wrong with our counter clockwise torque forumulas...
 
Last edited:
  • #107
\tau_{counter} = (1kg)(9.8)(.1m) + \frac {(1kg)(V)}{.01}

Your impulse torque doesn't have units of torque. You forgot to add the .1m

11.8157985(clockwise torque) - .98(torque of obj) = \frac {V}{.01}

I get V = 1083 when I do this, but factoring in the .1 from above, Its still really high, 108.3. Are you sure you did your torque-work correct?


Two things I also noticed. The torque isn't constant while the angle is swept, since gravity isn't always perpendicular to the radius vector, do you want to take this into account? Also, when the KG hits the seesaw, its impulse torque won't be perpendicular to the seesaw, so you are losing some torque right there. Just a few thoughts.
 
  • #108
Are you sure about those numbers? watch the decimal places maybe? Because (11.8 - .98 )(.01) = V doesn't get you that big of a number. I won't take those things into account.
 
  • #109
Oh right my bad, I can't multiply.
 
  • #110
lol okay so if we both agree that hte number is too small, then what the heck is going on ::bangs head on desk::
 
  • #111
\tau_{clock} - \tau_{obj} = \tau_{imp}

10.8 = \frac{mv}{t} x

\frac{10.8t}{xm} = v

v = 1.08m/s

Try that. Sounds more reasonable.

I get 6cm.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
That sounds more reasonable, 6 cm drop height.. approx: 2.5 inches. Maybe...
 
  • #113
The biggest source of error is assuming the torque angles are perpendicular. You're probably going to need a larger impact velocity to get it to work perfect.
 
  • #114
I'll cut the wood tomorrow and set it up and run some experiments to see what happens, and if it's not a whole lot off (meaning i don't have to adjust the drop height more then 3 cm or so, i'll do an error analysis, if not, i may factor it it in. However if i have to adjust by 10 cm + then we probably have a problem.
 
  • #115
Sounds good, have fun with it. Dont break the wood :)
 
  • #116
I tried setting something similar to this last night with the wood at the exact length and the ratio's were pretty close. The height of the fulcrum was a little less than it should be but I was just using my hand impacting the wood as the force. I found it EXTREMELY difficult to get much height out of the hacky sack, not even a meter. I was hitting it pretty hard too. Is there anyone you can verify that we did this right with?
 
  • #117
Yeah, I know it won't work with a kg of mass from that small of a height, using my hand, with correct rations and everything, and a lip to keep the hacky sack from releasing early, I still can't get it to go 2.5 m horizontally. The best I can get hitting it very hard is about 1 m.

Should I start a new thread in the advance physics forum and see what we can do?
 
Last edited:
  • #118
Wouldnt hurt, but try to make some error analysis to pinpoint the problem..
 
  • #119
I wouldnt' be surprised if I missed something, but if we had a way to quantify the discrepancy it would be really helpful.
 
  • #120
I posted on the college forum just to see if we can see what others have to say... if anything lol I have AP test next week, all kinds of things to do for this physics project, this is the most important part at least. THe rest the calculations i'll have to do are all basic, so I'm good. Refresh me tho, I just hada brain fart, how do you solve for the acceleration of a ball rolling down a ramp knowing the angle of course.
 
  • #121
is it rolling or sliding..
if its sliding then friction is neglible and your acceleration is just g*sin(t)
 
  • #122
can't we make a similar assumption if it's a marble (I know that it really isn't the same since the object is rolling, and gravity has an effect on how the ball spins and therefore changes the acceleration). However we never did it this way since it is high school physics after all. So i don't know if he wants me to go too deep with the whole rolling thing. Unless you can explain it fairly simply?
 
Back
Top