SAMBRANO, Dave V.
Group#3
2015110907
Experiment 204: Torque: Second Condition of Equilibrium
Abstract
Torque measures the amount of force it takes to rotate an object. The second condition of equilibrium
states that the sum of all torques of a body in equilibrium is zero. One should be able to analyze these
concepts and understand its significance in order to apply them in solving for the weight of pans in a
system, the weight of a beam, and the forces needed for the system to be in equilibrium.
Introduction
According to Archimedes, torque is the
ability of force to change the rotational
motion of a particle; also known as the
moment of force, torque always depends on
the axis of rotation. It is said to be directly
proportional with the force applied on the
particle and at the same time, dependent on
the perpendicular distance of the applied
force to the axis of rotation. For this
experiment, it focuses on the factors of
Second Condition of Equilibrium. This
condition states that the system is in
equilibrium when its net torque is equal to
zero or when the system does not have a
force to rotate. This experiment also focuses
on how torque is affected by the forces
acting upon the system and the distance of
the object from the axis of rotation.
Methodology
This experiment requires the following
materials: one set of model equilibrium, one
set of weights, a meterstick, a protractor, two
weight pans, and a spring balance. The
experiment was divided into three parts.
The first part was determining the weight
of the pans. The model equilibrium was set
up in a way where the axis of rotation was
passing through the center of gravity of the
beam. A pan was placed on the left side of the
equilibrium with weights on it and the other
pan was placed on the right side, weightless.
With the beam equilibrium, the distance of
both pans from the axis of rotation was
computed. The pan on the right side then
carried a weight while the pan on the left side
became weightless; the distance of both pans
from the axis of rotation was again computed
with the beam is in equilibrium.
The second part was determining the
Force needed to be in Equilibrium. The
spring equilibrium was used to measure the
applied force; both the pan carrying a weight
and the spring equilibrium itself was placed
on the left side of the equilibrium. The beam
was kept in horizontal position while the
spring equilibrium was inclined less than 90°.
The reading obtained was the applied force to
be in equilibrium; then radial distance from
the axis of rotation was measured. The whole
process for the second trial was then repeated,
this time the spring equilibrium was inclined
on the right side of the beam.
The third part was determining the
weight of the beam. The second hole in the
beam served as the new axis of rotation; a pan
with weights was placed on the right side of
the beam and was adjusted in its equilibrium.
The distance from the axis of rotation was
then measured and was used to compute for
the weight of the beam. The whole process
was repeated for two more trials with varying
mass.
Result and discussion
The weights of the pan influences the
situation of its situation in the model adjust.
The heavier the pan, the nearer to the adjusts
support the dish must move to neutralize the
other pan's weight to make the framework in
equilibrium.
In table 1, this idea is more represented as it
is demonstrated that as the weights
increment, the separation from the support
diminishes.
While deciding these weights, the percent
difference was 1.32% for pan 1 and 1.38% for
pan 2.
The point of the spring balance additionally the whole of all torques of a body in equilibrium
influences the perusing in the spring balance is zero and also recognize this present property's
As the point gets bigger, the force expected to utilization and importance.
adjust the model adjust gets applied not so The variables that apply to torque on an object
much evenly but rather more vertically and include the object's displacement, the pivot
along these lines the perusing on the spring point, and the forces that influence the object.
gets diminished as the edge draws nearer to a
On the off chance that a system is in
straight line.
translational equilibrium, it is does not
To some part C, the help of the pillar is consequently mean it is in rotational equilibrium
exchanged to the second gap to decide the also. It is conceivable to have adjusted forces
shaft's weight. This was done to uncover the however uneven torque or the other way around.
gravitational force influencing the bar. One would suggest utilizing better quality
materials for this analysis. The spring
At the point when the bar is put in the center equilibrium in this analysis is basically
gap like in the past parts of the trial, it is in indiscernible and was vigorously evaluated. It
harmony and this should be changed. was very fortunate for one's outcomes to have a
low percent different.
Changing the opening will likewise make the
torque increment or reduction relying upon
the where the hub of revolution (the gap) is
put, yet the heaviness of the pillar will stay
steady.
Taking the table 3, one notification how the
figured weight of the shaft is all near each
other, and this was normal as this ought to be
steady. On the off chance that it were not for
outside elements that are out of one's control,
the numbers would be precisely the same as
the genuine weight and be steady.
Be that as it may, due to minute factors, the
figured weight has a percent difference with
the real weight of 0.45%
Conclusion
The goals of this experiment have come. One
could analyze the system in harmony by
applying the property of equilibrium to which
Sample Computation TABLE 3. Determining the Weight of the Beam
TABLE 1: Determining the weight of W1 + P1 =74.8
pans L1 = 14 [cm] L2 = 7.6 [cm]
Trial 1: WB (Measured) =137.7 [g]
(26.5) P2 –P1(18.5)=10(18.5) Trial 1:
(22.6)P2-P1(26)=-5(22.) WB (Computed) =
𝑃�2 = 26.48 [𝑔�] (𝑃�1+𝑊�1)𝐿�1/𝐿�2

𝑃�1 = 25.47[𝑔�] WB (Computed) =

TABLE 2. Determining the Force needed (74.8)14/7.6
to be in Equilibrium WB (Computed) =137.7 [g]
Trial 1: Average:

L1 = 24.5 [cm] WB (Computed) =

L2 = 10 [cm] 137.7+138.35+18.50.35/3
W1 + P1 =74.8 WB (Computed) = 139.22 [g]
F (Measured) = 205 [g] Percent Difference:
ϴ=59 %𝑑�𝑖�𝑓�𝑓� =|𝑊�𝐶�𝑜�𝑚�𝑝�𝑢�𝑡�𝑒�𝑑� −
𝑊�𝑀�𝑒�𝑎�𝑠�𝑢�𝑟�𝑒�𝑑�|/(𝑊�𝐶�𝑜�𝑚�𝑝�𝑢�𝑡�𝑒�𝑑� +
𝐹�(𝐶�𝑜�𝑚�𝑝�𝑢�𝑡�𝑒�𝑑�) =
𝑊�𝑀�𝑒�𝑎�𝑠�𝑢�𝑟�𝑒�𝑑�/2)𝑥�100%
(𝑃�1 + 𝑊�1)𝐿�1/𝐿�2sin (𝜃�)
%𝑑�𝑖�𝑓�𝑓� =|136.7 – 136.091|/(136.7 +
𝐹�(𝐶�𝑜�𝑚�𝑝�𝑢�𝑡�𝑒�𝑑�) =(74.8)24.51/10.5sin (34[°]) 136.09/2)𝑥�100%

𝐹�(𝐶�𝑜�𝑚�𝑝�𝑢�𝑡�𝑒�𝑑�) = 203.61 [𝑔�] %𝑑�𝑖�𝑓�𝑓� = 0.45

Data Tables

TABLE 1. Determining the Weight of Pans

Actual value of pan 1, P1= 24.8
Actual value of pan 2, P2= 24.8
Trial L1 L2 L3 L4 P1 computed P2 computed
W1 10
1 18.5 26.5 26 22.6 26.48763381 25.47249908
W2 5
W1 15
2 17 27.2 25.8 12.8 24.71910112 24.8244382
W2 25
W1 30
3 11.5 27 26 14.6 24.19209886 23.08181988
W2 20
Average weight of pan 1, P1 25.1329446
Average weight of pan 2, P2 24.45958572
Percent Difference for P1 1.33356685
Percent Difference for P2 1.382124003

TABLE 2. Determining the Force needed to be Equilibrium

Trial L1 L2 W1+P1 F computed F measured % difference
1 24.5 10.5 74.8 203.61 205 0.680355351
2 24.5 10 74.8 285.1 280 1.804990267

TABLE 3. Determining the Weight of the Beam

Trial L1 L2 W1+P1 W B computed W B MEASURED
1 14 7.6 74.8 136.7
2 12.4 7.6 84.8 138.3578947 136.7
3 10.6 7.6 94.8 132.2210526
Average Weight of Beam, 2B 136.09
Percent Difference 0.44723047
References
Department of Physics at Mapúa
University “Physics Laboratory Part 2”
Intramuro,Manila, Philippines: Mapúa University