You are on page 1of 8

E204: TORQUE: SECOND CONDITION OF EQUILIBRIUM

FRISNEDI, Nadine T.

OBJECTIVE
Torque, which is developed by Archimedes, is the
ability of force to change the rotational motion of
a particle and an influence to change the rotational
motion of an object. For a body to be in equilibrium
the sum of all the torques acting on it, clockwise
and counter clockwise, should be zero.
Equilibrium implies a state of balance. Its second
condition states that the net torque acting on the
body should be zero for angular acceleration to be
zero.
The purpose of this experiment is to study the
principles of torque through the application
of Newtons second condition of equilibrium.
The students were tasked with obtaining the
weight and forces
of certain apparatuses
through the analysis of equilibrium so as
to
practice
and understand more clearly the
significance of torque in the process. In order to
evaluate their findings, the
students
were
prompted to compare their gathered data
with actual values through the computation
of the percent differences.
This relationship
between torque and equilibrium is the main
background of the experiment which was
conducted.
By the end of the experiment, it is expected for
students to know the second condition of
equilibrium. They will learn how the second
condition affects an object or a body. They will also
learn how to apply the second condition in
computing the unknown data in the experiment.
Through this experiment, the students will gain
more knowledge and appreciation about the
concepts on torque and how different is first
condition of equilibrium to the second one.
Students will also appreciate the concept of second

condition of equilibrium and how it is important in


studying Physics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The performed experiment used the following
materials and equipment which are: two pieces of
weight pans, a model balance, a protractor, a
meter stick, a spring balance, set of weights and
an electronic weighing scale.

Figure 1. The materials and equipment used in the experiment.

Before conducting the experiment, the table


should be made stable, stationary and leveled. The
model balance, meter stick, and the weight pans
were the main materials for this experiment. The
model balance was set-up based on the figure
given on the laboratory manual wherein the axis
of rotation passes through the center of gravity of
the beam. Since there is a missing nail on the
beam, in which there is hole left on it to be used
later on the experiment, it is necessary to put a
piece of paper, it can be rolled so that it fits on the
last empty hole on the right side of the beam.
Adjust the amount of that piece of paper until the
beam is balanced.

1 | Page

The L1 is the distance between the pan, P1 and the


axis of rotation, L2 on the other hand is the
distance between the pan, P2 to the axis of
rotation. L1 and L2 was measured using the meter
stick.

Figure 2. Set-up for the determination of the weight of the


pans.

After the set-up is done, a 10-gram weight is


considered to be the W1, was placed on the pan,
P1. The pans are to be placed on the beam in which
the hooks or nails can be used to hang the pans.
The pan, P1 is positioned on the right side of the
beam while the pan, P2 is positioned on the left
side of the beam. The two pans were placed on
the beam while it is made sure that the beam
becomes horizontally orientated or be seen as
balanced in both of its sides which states that the
system is in equilibrium. It is not necessary that
the pans must be placed on the hooks or the nails,
they can be hanged on top of the body of the beam
inwardly to make the pans become balanced.

Figure 4. Measuring L1 using the meter stick.

Figure 5. Measuring L2 using the meter stick.

After that, the 10g weight was taken off from the
pan, P1. A weight of 5g, which is considered the
W2, was placed on P2. The two pans were placed
again on the beam for the system to be in
equilibrium.

Figure 3. P1 with a W1 and P2 in equilibrium.

2|Page

The angle of inclination of the spring balance was


measured using the protractor, which is less than
90 degrees in which the beam was kept in
horizontal position. The reading of the spring
balance was recorded and was marked as the
F(Measured).

Figure 6. P1 and P1 with W2 in equilibrium.

The L3 this time is also the distance between the


pan, P1 and the axis of rotation, L4 on the other
hand this time is the distance between the pan, P2
to the axis of rotation. Using the meter stick, L3
and L4 were measured. The previous procedure
was repeated for the second and the third trial
however the amount of weights placed on the pans
were different. After conducting all the trials, the
mass of P1 and P2 was computed for each trial.
For the second part of the experiment, a weight of
50g is considered as W1, was placed on P1 which
is at the left side of the beam. The spring balanced
was also placed on the left side of the beam in a
manner that will make the beam balanced.

Figure 8. Determining the angle of inclination of the spring


balance.

The distance of the pan, P1 from the axis of


rotation is measured as the L1 and the distance of
the spring balance from the axis of rotation was
measured and was marked as L2. The force
exerted by the spring balance was measured using
the second condition of equilibrium. The
procedures were repeated for the second trial but
the spring balance was placed at the right side of
the beam.
For the third part of the experiment, the second
hole on the beam was used as the axis of rotation.
The weight 50g was, which is again considered as
the W1, was placed on the pan, P1. The location of
pan was adjusted for the system until equilibrium
is achieved. The distance of P1 from the axis of
rotation was measured as the L1. The distance
from the axis of rotation to Wb, which is the
previous axis of rotation from the first two parts of
the experiment, was measured and marked as the
L2.

Figure 7. Set-up for determining the force needed for


equilibrium

3|Page

The previous procedure was repeated for the


second and the third trial however the amount of
weights placed on the pans were different. For the
second trial, the W1=60g while on the third trial,
the W1=70g were used. After this the weight of the
beam was computed using the second condition of
equilibrium.
OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS

Figure 9. Set-up for determining the weight of the beam.

In the first part of the experiment, the L1, L2, L3,


L4, P1(Computed), and P2(Computed) were needed. The
weights were already given. The L1 and L2 was
measured by the distance of the P1 with W1 of P2
to the axis of rotation. The L3 and L4 was measured
by the distance of the P1 and P2 with W2 to the
axis of rotation. The P1(Computed) and P2(Computed) were
computed using the elimination method of two
equations from the procedures. The average
weight of pans, were obtained by getting the
average of P1 and P2 in the three trials. The percent
difference for both of the pans were computed in
which the actual value of the pans was the first
variable while the average experimental weight
was the second variable.

Table 1. Determining the Weight of the Pan


Actual Value of pan 1, P1 = 24.8g
Actual Value of pan 2, P2 = 24.8g

Figure 10. Measuring L1 using the meter stick.

TRIAL
1

W1= 10g
W2= 5g
W1= 15g
W2= 25g
W1= 30g
W2= 20g

L1

L2

L3

L4

17.7
cm

24.7
cm

21.1
cm

17.7
cm

10.2
cm

16.3
cm

19.9
cm

10.1
cm

10.1
cm

22.1
cm

18.2
cm

10.1
cm

Figure 11. Measuring L2 using the meter stick.

4|Page

TRIAL

2
3

P1

P2

(COMPUTED)

(COMPUTED)

25.59g

25.5g

W1 = 10g
W2 = 5g

25.5 + 25.39 + 25.17


3
2 = 25.35

2 =

Percent Difference
|1 2 |
+ 2
( 1
)
2
|24.8 25.41|
% 1 =
24.8 + 25.41
(
)
2
% 1 = 2.43%
% 1 =

W1 = 15g
W2 = 25g

25.58g

25.39g

W1 = 30g
W2 = 20g

25.06g

25.17g

Average Weight of P1 = 25.41g


Average Weight of P2 = 25.35g

|1 2 |
+ 2
( 1
)
2
|24.8 25.35|
% 2 =
24.8 + 25.35
(
)
2
% 2 = 2.21%
% 2 =

Percent Difference for P1 = 2.43%


Percent Difference for P2 = 2.21%
Sample Computations:
Getting the P1(Computed) and P2(Computed) for the first
trial:
(1 + 1 )1 = (2 2 )
(2 + 2 )4 = (1 3 )
2 =

2 =

1 (2 4 + 1 3 )
2 3 1 4

17.7((5)(17.7) + (10)(21.1))
((24.7)(21.1) (17.7)(17.7))
2 = 25.5
1 =

(2 + 2 )4
3

(25.5 + 5)17.7
1 =
21.1
1 = 25.59

Average weight of pans:


25.59 + 25.58 + 25.06
3
1 = 25.41

1 =

For the second part of the experiment, the L1 and


L2 was measured using the same procedure in the
first part of the experiment by replacing the P 2
with the spring balance. The angle of inclination
was measures using the protractor. The force F by
the spring balance on the beam was computed
using the second condition of equilibrium. The
percent difference for both trials were computed
in which the F(MEASURED) was the first variable and
the F(COMPUTED) as the second variable.
Table 2. Determining the Force Needed to be
in Equilibrium
TRIAL
1
2

L1
17.7
cm
17.7
cm

L2

W1+P1

7.3cm

74.8g

15.1 cm

74.8g

(COMPUTED)

(MEASURED)

224.18g

240g

6.82%

108.38g

90g

18.53%

TRIAL

%Diff

5|Page

Sample Computations:

TRIAL

wB (COMPUTED)

Getting the F(COMPUTED) for the first trial:

144.48g

Given: L1 = 17.7cm, L2 = 7.3cm, W1 = 50g,


P1 =24.8g, =54

144.04g

144.15g

wB (MEASURED)

137g

1 + 1 = 50 + 24.8 = 74.8
()

Average Weight WB =
Percent Difference =

(1 + 1 )1
=
sin 2

() =

144.22g
5.14%

Sample Computations:

(74.8)17.7
(sin 54)7.3

Getting the WB (COMPUTED) for the first trial:

() = 224.18

Given: L1 = 14.1cm, L2 = 7.3cm, W1 = 50g,


P1 =24.8g

Percent Difference for the first trial:


F(MEASURED) = 240g
|1 2 |
% =
+ 2
( 1
)
2
|240 224.18|
% =
240 + 224.18
(
)
2
% = 6.82%

1 + 1 = 50 + 24.8 = 74.8
=

(1 + 1 )1
2

(74.8)14.1
7.3

= 144.48
For the third part of the experiment, the L1 and L2
was measured by getting the distance between P1
and Wb from the axis of rotation respectively. The
weight if the beam was computed using the given
formula. The average weight of pans, were
obtained by getting the average of P 1 and P2 in the
three trials. The percent difference for both trials
were computed in which the WB(MEASURED) was the
first variable and the average of the WB(COMPUTED) as
the second variable.

Average weight of the beam:


144.48 + 144.04 + 144.15
3
= 144.22

Percent Difference
Actual Value of = 137g
% =

Table 3. Determining the Weight of the Beam


TRIAL

L1

L2

W1+P1

14.1cm

7.3cm

74.8g

12.4cm

7.3cm

84.8g

11.1cm

7.3cm

94.8g

% =

|1 2 |
+ 2
( 1
)
2

|137 144.22|
137 + 144.22
(
)
2

% = 5.14%

6|Page

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION


Torque is a measure of how much a force is acting
on an object causes that object to rotate. It is also
called as the moment of force. On the experiment
the model balance serves as the axis of rotation.
Our data in the first table shows that we have
determined the weight of the pan. The concept of
torque and the second condition of equilibrium was
used in this part. Based on our data, as the weight
increases the P1 and the P2 also increases. It shows
that as the force applied increases, torque also
increases.
Therefore,
torque
is
directly
proportional with the force applied on the object
and is also dependent on the perpendicular
distance of the applied force to the axis of rotation.
Since the summation of torque in the body must
be equal to 0, the clockwise torques must be equal
to the counterclockwise torques, the P1 should be
equal to P2 so that the beam will not rotate. The
% difference that we got for the P1 and P2 are
2.41% and 2.35% respectively, which is small.
Our data on the second table shows that we have
determined the force exerted by the spring
balance to the beam. The force needed for the
system to be in equilibrium is greater when the
angle is greater than zero but less than 90
degrees. As the angle is reaching zero, the system
is reaching equilibrium. For this part of the
experiment, we got a high percent difference.
Maybe it is due to the wrong measurements of the
distances and the angles and we assumed that the
beam is balanced already.
On the third activity we need to use the second
hole in the beam as the axis of rotation. The data
from the third table shows that we have
determined the weight of the beam. The weight
was computed using the concept of the second
condition of equilibrium. The weight we have come
up is quite close to the actual value and this means
that we did the experiment properly.

In the three parts of experiment which finds the


weight of the pan, force exerted and weight of the
beam respectively, we noticed how torque is
affected by the forces acting on the system and
their radial distance from the axis and also, how
the rotational equilibrium is applied. We have
come up to the conclusion when second condition
of equilibrium is satisfied, there is no angular
acceleration and body will not be moving and will
be in rotational equilibrium.
Since all the parts of the experiment have been
applied by the second condition of equilibrium and
we have analyzed each part to get the unknown
data, the first objective of second condition of
equilibrium was fulfilled. Since we have applied the
second condition of equilibrium, we have known its
importance for solving the unknown and learning
how to use it. This fulfills the second objective of
the experiment. This makes our experiment
successful since all the objectives were achieved
The possible sources of error for this experiment
are wrong judgement of balancing the beam and
inaccurate measurement of the distances of the
object to the axis of rotation. We might say that
the beam is already balance but maybe it is not
really balanced totally. If the beam is not
balanced, it will affect our data since we applied
the second condition of equilibrium. For the
measurement of the distances, since they are all
measured manually, there is a tendency to
approximate the measurement since the object we
are measuring are not stable.
We could recommend to the students in the future
that will also conduct this experiment is that they
make sure that the beam is totally balanced and
make sure that when measuring distances, it
should be done properly and accurately. Also,
doing a sub-trial per added weight is
recommended to verify the measurements so that
the data to be used will be of the least error.

7|Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENT & REFERENCE


I would like to thank my groupmates for being so
cooperative upon doing the experiment. Although
it was a lot of pressure doing two experiments in
one period they kept cool and relaxed even if time
is really limited. I appreciate all of their efforts
since without their initiative in doing the tasks
assigned to them, our experiment will have a great
chance of failure. I would also like to thank our
professor, Prof. Ricardo F. De Leon, Jr. for guiding
all throughout the experiment and for pointing out
the things we should remember in conducting the
experiment. I would also like to thank him for
giving us additional points for our performance in
this experiment. I would like to thank my friends,
Vivi, Elijah, and Alvin for giving me ideas on how I
should properly layout my report and how my
ideas should flow. They were very nice when I ask
for their help. I also would like to acknowledge the
lab assistants for reminding us how to properly
handle the materials and equipment they are
lending us so that it would be easy for us to set it
up and we wont damage those materials. Lastly,
I would like to thank my family for their never
ending support and encouragement for me in my
studies as I pursue my degree in Mapa. They
have been so understanding and I am so blessed
to have them.
Reference:
Calderon, Jose C., (2000) College Physics
Laboratory
Manual,
Mapa
Institute
of
Technology, Manila: Department of Physics.

8|Page

You might also like