Why is the net torque not exactly zero.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the observation that the net torque measured in an experiment is 0.02 N-m instead of zero, prompting inquiries into potential causes. Participants suggest that the meter stick's slight misalignment and the positioning of the hangers may contribute to the discrepancy. They also explore the impact of significant figures and the positioning of supports on torque calculations. Adjustments to the force scale and recalculating torques based on different reference points are proposed as potential solutions. The conversation highlights the complexities of achieving precise measurements in torque experiments.
snagglepuffin
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The sum of the net torques is zero even f the numerical result is not. Rather than simply explaining that the net torque is close to zero, justify that your net torque is small, within the context of this experiment.


2. Attached is a pdf of the lab that we had this week. My question is regarding Question 2 on Page 5.


Here is what we got for our measurements.
DATA TABLE 1
Mass (kg) Force (N) Sign of torque Moment Arm (m) Torque (N-m)
Meter stick .1974 -1.93 - .49 -.9457
Hanger 1 .020 -.196 - .66 -.1294
Hanger 2 .0207 -.203 - .98 -.1989
Hanging Mass .0999 -.797 - .66 -.6461
Force sensor no mass 1.98 + .98 1.92
Sum of forces : -1.328N
Sum of torques : 0.02 N-m



The Attempt at a Solution


My lab partner and I were trying to figure out why our measured net torque was not zero, but .02 N-m. We thought that it might have been the use of significant figures, but that did not work. Also, through observation of the setup, we noticed that the meter stick was not hanging perfectly straight, because of the hangers. We thought that there was a torque along the x-axis. Assume that the x-axis runs the length of the meter stick and the y-axis is vertical.

Any other ideas out there why our calculated net torque is not exactly zero?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
snagglepuffin said:
through observation of the setup, we noticed that the meter stick was not hanging perfectly straight, because of the hangers.
Was there a reason you couldn't adjust the force scale to get the meter stick to be horizontal?

One experiement should have been to only use hangar 2 at the 100 cm end of the meter stick, which would simplify the test and perhaps be used to "calibrate" the test. I'm wondering about the actual net effect of a support or hangar placed at the ends of a meter stick, where each net force could actually act as if it originates somewhat inside the ends of the meter stick. Can the support / hangars be positioned partially beyond the ends of the meter stick in an attempt to get the actual net force to act at almost exactly at the 0 and 100 cm points, although this may not explain why the calculated torque was .02 N m.
 
Last edited:
rcgldr said:
Was there a reason you couldn't adjust the force scale to get the meter stick to be horizontal?

The meter stick was about 1mm off on the horizontal, so overall it was level horizontally.

The hangers themselves would not hold it perfectly vertical. I tried multiple hangers and picked the best ones, but there was still some twisting down the meter stick. If you look at the end of the meter stick and it is perfectly straight, you should only see the (3/8)" x 1" profile. Looking down our meter stick I could see the other end, leading me to believe that there is an unaccounted for torque about the x-axis.

Also, the closest the supports could be to the end of the meter stick was 1cm. Could the fact that there was still mass on the other side of the hanger be where the error is?
 
snagglepuffin said:
Also, the closest the supports could be to the end of the meter stick was 1cm. Could the fact that there was still mass on the other side of the hanger be where the error is?
What happens if you recalculate the table for torques about 0 cm, but with the outer hangers at 1 cm and 99 cm? (In this case the hanger at 1 cm generates a tiny amount of torque).
 
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 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
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