Center of Mass LAB

Center of Mass LAB - These small variations could easily...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1. See Lab for Diagrams and Data. 2. For the thin slab shape (#3) we suspended the body with on a pin vertically until it came to a rest. At that time we marked a vertical line with a plum-bob adjacent to the pin supporting the mass. We then positioned the support pin in a different hole and repeated the process for marking a line. The experimental center of mass was then measured to be the point where the two lines intersected. For the metal rod with a weight attached we suspended the body with a thin string, adjusting by small increments until the beam was balanced horizontally. At this point the torque due to its mass is zero, and we have found the experimental center of mass. 3. For the slab body we had a difference of 2% in the x axis and 3% in the y. I feel this could easily be explained by the holes drilled through the body.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: These small variations could easily have caused the difference between our experimental COM and our calculated COM. With the beam like body our figures were very close, with only a .9% difference in the x axis and no difference in the y. The beam body has several small holes drilled in it, which could account for the small difference in the figures. 4. I am assuming the 2 bodies are cylinders attached to each other(one thin one thick). If that is the case then I= (1/12ML 2 + Mh 2 ) + ( 1/4MR 2 + 1/12ML 2 + Mh 2 ). H would be the distance from the point of rotation to the COM of each separate body, M would be the mass of the individual bodies, L would be the length of each cylinder, and R would be the radius of the large cylinder....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online