Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Effect of Moon on balance -- electronic balances




John Clement wrote:

<snip> The electronic balance is usually
a type of spring scale and as such it measures weight rather than mass
and
does it by balancing forces. An electronic balance will be inaccurate
on
the Moon, but a conventional pan balance will be perfectly accurate
<snip>
Of course one can... calibrate the electronic balance for the Moon.
<snip>

(1) Modern precision electronic balances are not really spring scales.
The most common holds the pan at a reference point with a magnetic field
produced by a current through a coil. If the pan moves "downward" the
coil current is increased to restore the pan to the null position; and
vice-versa. The current required to bring the pan to the null position
is compared to the current that was required to bring the standard mass
to the null position. Hence, this is a direct mass comparison, but the
comparison is temporally displaced.

Yes, but at that point in time it is really measuring weight. It also is
indeed a variant of a spring scale because it is comparing the normal force
to keep the object in position. One could calibrate it in Newtons and then
if it is stable it would read correctly under all conditions after that.
Similarly one could calibrate a spring scale in grams or Newtons, and they
often come calibrated that way. Incidentally, the balance measures the
amount of current to keep the mass in place, and not the current needed to
bring it back.


Indeed, the electronic balance can be calibrated for the moon. More
important, note that it has to be calibrated wherever it is used. That
is, if we don't have standard masses for making the comparison, we
cannot use the electronic balance. This is just like the beam balance.
Without the standard masses (and/or the beam sliders) you can't use the
beam balance.

With many of our electronic balances, the calibration mass(es) were
supplied with the balance. On some they are built in (see 6 below).
For others we have to have standard masses on hand.

(2) John says the electronic balance measures weight by balancing
forces. Yes, and this is almost exactly what a beam-balance does. A
beam balance balances the torque from the weight of the unknown mass
against the torque from the weight of the known masses. If it is an
equal-arm double-pan balance, and we don't use sliders, then we are
almost directly comparing weights because we are balancing torques on
equal lever-arms. If we use sliders, or it is not an equal-arm balance,
then the standard masses are not the same size as the unknown mass and
we are comparing torques on unequal lever arms. If it is confusing to
students to measure mass by balancing weights electronically, I would
think it even more confusing to measure mass by comparing torques,
especially with unequal lever arms.


For the double pan balance, you are actually comparing masses. The triple
beam balance is less direct, but it still has the property that the student
can directly observe the comparison between the unknown mass and the slider
position. From a very simple point of view, it is obviously a balance. The
beam or double pan balance can be calibrated once in mass units, and it
should in principle need no further calibration. I doubt that if you asked
any student about how a mechanical balance works that they would use the
word torque or even think about comparing torques.

When using an electronic balance, the curious student might wonder if
the gravity force might change during the time lag between calibration
and determination of the unknown. When using a beam balance, the
curious student might wonder if the gravity force at the location of the
unknown mass is the same as that at the location of the known mass; or a
better question, does the balance beam really have equal-length arms?
This latter question is indeed a serious question.




(3) With some beam balances we bring the pan to a null position by
sliding weights (or if we go back a few years, by "dialing in" more or
fewer links of a fine chain). When this is the case, the pan balance
and the electronic balance are making similar comparisons. One is
making a null force measurement and the other is making a null torque
measurement. In both cases the standard mass must be there. (In the
beam balance it is there, but in a different location than the unknown
mass. In the electronic balance it is in the same position as the
unknown, but at a different time.) .

(4) However, in modern beam balances that read to the nearest 0.1
milligram, standard masses are only used for getting us to the nearest
0.1 or 0.01 gram depending on the particular balance. For the last
places, the beam is out of balance and a projected scale shows how far
from balance we are. The projected scale is calibrated in milligrams.
Hence, the final decimal places are determined not directly by weight
comparisons between material in the unknown pan versus material in the
standard pan (or on the slider), but by the torque of the balance
"pointer" when the beam is insufficiently balanced by the standard
masses.

There is a hybrid balance made my Ohaus (Dial-o-gram) in which the mass
torques do not null the beam but a torsion spring with a dial is used to
null the beam.

(5) Modern analytical balances that use balance beams are typically not
double-pan balances, and the standard masses typically are not visible
to the students. So these beam balances look like a single pan balance
from the student perspective, and students won't have any idea how the
balancing act is performed unless the professor opens the balance and
shows them the balance beam and the standard masses.

(6) The calibration masses for our Mettler Toledo electronic analytical
balances and our Denver Instruments electronic balances are built in.
This makes them appear equivalent to beam balances made by the same
companies, except the electronic balances are easier and faster to
operate and will perform taring.

One Denver balance we have does the calibration automatically. You
press the calibrate button and it automatically (with motors) places the
calibration mass on the pan and measures the current required to return
it to null position. The non-motorized versions require us to slide a
lever to put the standard mass on the pan when the display panel
requests it. In neither balance type is this visible to the user unless
you open the case. (Likewise, the masses in the beam balance are not
visible unless you open the case.)


The simple triple beam balance has the masses completely visible and
touchable. However, the high tech version is another matter.

These electronics balances will work perfectly in environments with
different g as long as you follow directions. After unpacking,
leveling, and warm-up, the first step is to calibrate the balance for
its new location.

Understanding mass and understanding how we measure mass remain among
the more difficult concepts in basic classical mechanics. However, with
today's computer-literate students, it seems to me it is just as easy
for them to grasp mass comparisons made by electronic balances as those
made on equal-arm double-pan beam balances. An important key here is to
allow them to calibrate the balance themselves, or at least allow them
to watch you calibrate it. This along with a simple explanation of how
the microprocessor adjusts the pan to a null position by an electric
current calibrated by the standard mass seems pretty straight forward.

Absolutely not. It is not any easier for today's computer literate
generation than it was for our generation to grasp the distinction between
mass and weight, or between the measurements made by an electronic scale
compared to a mechanical balance. Remember that simple explanations are
never seen as simple from the student point of view. The mechanical balance
is much more understandable from the student point of view because it
resembles simple machines that they have played with. The electronic
balance is not as easily understood. Students can gain a good understanding
of some aspects of a spring scale by calibrating it, but they still will not
grasp the distinction between mass and weight. Similary learning to
calibrate an electronic scale will not help students understand the
important distinctions. We are now facing the situation that our machines
have become so complex and miniaturized that they appear to be magic to the
students. The old fashioned Victrola was easy to grasp, but today's CD is
not.

The easy way to test out my hypothesis is to explain to the students the
distinctions between an electronic balance and a mechanical balance. Then
propose that you take both to the moon "without any further recalibration".
Ask them "What would each read on the moon?". While you are at it some
other very simple questions can be added. Ask them if a block floats 3/4
submerged in a glass of water, how deep would it float on the moon. Better
yet get them to answer the questions on sheet FF-11 "Distinguishing Mass and
Weight" available at:
http://umperg.physics.umass.edu/projects/MindsOnPhysics/MOPSamples/
You might be surprised by the results.

Again please notice that I am not arguing that a particular type of
measuring device should or should not be given a particular name. My
original point was that certain names will probably confuse students, and
other names will help them. No amount of evidence about how the device
works can prove which name is better to be used in class with beginning
physics or chemistry students. My intuition says that students should
initially classify measuring devices in 2 classes, spring scales (force
measuring devices) and balances (mass measurement devices). Then once they
understand the difference between these 2 classes and understand the
difference between mass and weight, the more subtle devices could be
explored.

Notice that students must build on the concepts that they have before coming
to class. They have all balanced things and experienced see-saws. This
ideas of balance can be built on.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Chair of Sciences
Bluffton College
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu