I.

Abstract
The experiment used the beam as the system in order to analyze
systems using the second condition of equilibrium. The data shows
that the group was able to put the beam into equilibrium with respect
to the second condition of equilibrium or rotational equilibrium.

The

second condition of equilibrium is where all the summation of torques

acting on a body is zero which would cause the object to have zero
angular momentum and cause no rotation on the object or the body.
The experiment also conclude that in order to keep the system in both
the translational and the rotational equilibrium, the sum of all the
forces and the torques should be zero. The total summation of forces
and torques on the object means that the forces and torques acting on
the body balances each other. The experiment also found out that the
factors affecting torque is the force applied on the body and the
distance of the point where the force is being applied from the axis of
rotation. Which means that torque is directly proportional to both the
force applied and the distance or displacement from the axis of
rotation.
II.

Objectives
The main objectives of this Physics laboratory experiment were
to (a) analyze systems in equilibrium using the second condition and
(b) to distinguish some of second condition of equilibriums use and

significance. In this experiment, the group after performing the

experiment was able to understand the applications and significance of
the second condition of equilibrium in which the group also learned the
principles of torque acting on rigid bodies.
III.

Procedure
In this Physics laboratory experiment, the materials that are
used are (a) one set model balance, (b) one set weights, (c) one piece
meter stick, (d) one piece protractor, (e) two pieces weight pans, and
(f) one piece spring balance.
In Procedure A, the weight of the fans were determined. First,
the model balance was set up, the group made sure that the axis of
rotation passed through the center of gravity of the beam. Second, the
pans were marked as P1 and P2, then a 10-g weight (W1) was placed on
P1 and the two pans were placed on the beam and the system was put
in equilibrium and measured L1 and L2. Third, the weight from P1 were
taken off and a W2 of 5 g was placed on P2 and the system was set
again in equilibrium and L3 and L4 were measured. Fourth, procedures 2
and 3 were repeated for trials 2 (where W1 = 15 and W2 = 25 g) and 3
(where W1 = 30 and W2 = 20 g).
In Procedure B, the force need to be in equilibrium was
determined. First, The spring balance = was placed and W1 = 50 g was
weighted on P1 at the left side of the beam. The group made sure that
the angle of inclination of the spring balance was less than 90 and the

beam was kept in its horizontal position. Second, the reading of the
spring balance was recorded and marked as F

Measured

. Third the

distance of P1 and the spring balance were measured from the axis of
rotation and were marked as L1 and L2 respectively. Fourth, the angle
of inclination () of the spring balance with the beam was measured.
Fifth, the second condition of equilibrium was used to compute the
force F exerted by the spring balance on the beam to keep it in
equilibrium. Sixth, procedures 1-5 were repeated but the spring
balance was placed on the right side of the beam this time.
In Procedure C, the weight of the beam was determined. First.
The second hole of the beam was used as the axis of rotation so that
the center of the gravity of the beam did not pass through the new
axis of rotation. Second, a W1 = 50 g was placed on P1 and its location
was adjusted to have the system in equilibrium. The distance between
P1 and WB from the axis of rotation was measured and was marked as
L1 and L2 respectively. Fourth, the weight of the beam, WB, was
computed. Fifth, procedures 1-4 were repeated for trials 2 (where W1
IV.

= 60 g) and 3 (where W1 = 70 g).

Interpretation of Data and Results

TABLE 1. Determining the Weight of Pans

Actual value of pan 1, P1 = grams
Actual value of pan 2, P2 = grams
Trial
L1
L2
L3
L4
1 W1 = 10 g 18.3 cm
25 cm 21.5 cm 17.5 cm
W2 = 5 g
2 W1 = 15 g 12.6 cm 19.6 cm 20 cm
10.1 cm

P1(computed)
23.8 g

P2(computed)
25.4 g

23.58 g

24.11 g

W2 = 25 g
W1 = 30 g
W2 = 20 g

11.4 cm

25 cm

25 cm

14.1 cm

24.39 g

23.97 g

Average weight of pan 1, P1 = 23.95 grams

Average weight of pan 2, P2 = 24.5 grams
Percent Difference for pan 1, P1 = 3.49 %
Percent Difference for pan 2, P2 = 1.22 %
Computation

Table 1 shows the different computed values for P1 and P2 for the
three trials conducted. It can be observed that for each trials different
weights were added on the weight pans but it could be observed that
the P1 and P2 are still almost the same as shown by the percentage
difference for P1 and P2. The small percentage difference for both P1
and P2 shows that the group was able to maintain the beam in
equilibrium through the three trials as for each trials, different weights
were put to the pans.

TABLE 2. Determining the Force needed to be in Equilibrium

Tria
L1
L2
W1 + P 1
F Computed
F Measured
%difference
l
1
25 cm
7.5 cm
74.8 g
44.35 g
43.88 g
1.07 %
2
15 cm
12.5 cm
74.8 g
9.75 g
9.69 g
0.62 %
Computation

Table 2 shows the force needed by the beam to be in

equilibrium, for the two trials conducted the force needed is both
measured and calculated. The measured force was measured using the
spring balance, the small percent difference of the measured force
from the calculated force shows that the group was able to bring the
beam into equilibrium in the two trials. Which means that the angle
the group inclined the spring balance from the beam was less than 90
and that is why the beam was put into equilibrium.
TABLE 3. Determining the Weight of the Beam

Tria
l
1
2
3

L1

L2

13.5 cm
12 cm
10.7 cm

7.5 cm
7.5 cm
7.5 cm

W1 + P1

WB (Computed)

WB (Measured)

74.8 g
134.64 g
84.8 g
135.68 g
135.1 g
94.8 g
135.248 g
Average weight of Beam, WB = 135.19 grams
Percent Difference = 0.07 %
Computation

Table 3 shows that actual value of the weight of the beam (WB
(Measured)

) and the computed weight of the beam (WB (Computed)). The very

small percentage difference of the average value of the computed

value of the weight of the beam to its actual value means that the
group was also able to put the beam into equilibrium while weighing it
in this part of this experiment. Which also shows that the group was
able to put the second condition of equilibrium on the beam
throughout the experiment.
V.

Conclusion

From the data gathered and interpreted from the results of the
experiment, the group learned the principles of the second condition of
equilibrium. The group learned to analyze systems on equilibrium
using the second condition of equilibrium and hot to put it in
application in objects and activities. As from this experiment, the
group used the beam as the system to be put it the equilibrium and
the data shows that the group was able to put the beam into
equilibrium with respect to the second condition of equilibrium.
Therefore it can be concluded that, the second condition of
equilibrium is where all the summation of torques acting on a body is
zero which would cause the object to have zero angular momentum
and cause no rotation on the object or the body. Thus it can be also
concluded that when the object is in rotational equilibrium it does not
mean that the object or the system is also in translational equilibrium.
This is because translational equilibrium is defined as all the forces
acting on the system is equal to zero or simply the first condition of
equilibrium and rotational equilibrium is defined as the second
condition of equilibrium. Then it means that it order to keep the
system in both the translational and the rotational equilibrium, the
sum of all the forces and the torques should be zero. The total
summation of forces and torques on the object means that the forces
and torques acting on the body balances each other. Torque is defined
as the rotational force or the ability of a force to rotate a body, and

from this experiment it can be concluded that the factors affecting

torque is the force applied on the body and the distance of the point
where the force is being applied from the axis of rotation.
These concepts can be shown in the experiment conducted. For
example in Part A, the P1 with added weights was moved closer to the
rotational axis and the P2 where no weights was added was moved
farther from the axis. The same way, the spring balance was not
inclined equal to 90 as the force needed to be in equilibrium would be
measured as zero because the force being applied would be in the
same direction of the object. Lastly in Part C, the support of the beam
was adjusted to the second hole to expose the effect of the gravity on
the beam, which means that on that part of the experiment, the beam
is not in equilibrium. These examples are also concluded to be the
possible sources of errors in this experiment.