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: cavendish expt



As John has pointed out (subtly) the G is independent of the mass of the pendulum.
There are a number of apparatuses (not apparati) commercially available. The
probable best is TelAtomic's it uses the variation in capacitance as a detector it's
analog sig. is suitable for Lab Pro, etc. This is one of the std. xpts in the Adv.
lab. at UCSC Physics (until now using the Leybold). One of the hidden sources of
error is the positions of the four center of masses with respect to each other. This
may be the reason a recent (not the "recentest") method was to use W cylinders
instead of spheres. tho this is not the ideal geometry by making them long their
vertical position is less critical than that of a sphere. Incidentally, an useful
calc. is to find the improvement? using drums of water instead of small spheres of
denser sand. Hej! use Pb spheres.

A student worker of mine used a coupala $k grant, I obtained, to make a digitally
controlled one. It used a chart recorder controlled by two differential (phase
sens.) photo cells and a LASER (mirror on the Leybold torsion pendulum)

One time I had the NPS Modern Phys. lab. do it. I used my camcorder with seconds
clock, and a VCP that stepped frames.

bc who remembers an article in Sci. Am. for an amateur apparatus it used 1/4 " open
reel mylar tape.

John Mallinckrodt wrote:

The sensitivity of the Cavendish apparatus is, directly proportional
to the square of its oscillation period T due to its inverse
dependence on the torsion constant of the suspending thread.
Unfortunately, this means that a sensitive Cavendish apparatus will
both take a long time to settle down AND be highly sensitive to
drafts as Wolfgang has mentioned.

It's not hard to show that the expected angle of deviation is something like

G*M*T^2
theta = -------
2*L*d^2

where M is the mass of one of the fixed masses, L is the length of
the bar, and d is the effective separation between the fixed and bar
mounted masses.

Assuming (off the top of my head) T = 100 s, M = 100 kg, L = 1 m, and
d = 40 cm I get a few tenths of a milliradian. Using a 5 m optical
lever, this would give you a spot motion of a couple of mm which
*might* be detectable. I think, however, that the standard Leybold
apparatus (which easily sits on a small desk) produces several to ten
times this much deflection and it also provides thorough isolation
from drafts by completely enclosing the pendulum itself.

I did have a student who wanted to try building a Cavendish apparatus
once. He didn't put in much effort, however, and had a concomitant
level of success. He eventually settled for using the Leybold
apparatus which still requires a lot of time primarily to coax the
pendulum into an equilibrium position in which it does NOT make
contact with the sides of the enclosure. He came to me at the end of
an apparently grueling four hour stint in the lab and remarked, "Boy,
Professor Mallinckrodt, that Cavendish must have been ONE PATIENT
DUDE!"

Greetings phys-eders:

I am attempting to set up an experiment similar to
what Cavendish did when he "weighed the earth".

I'm using two joint compound buckets filled with sand
as the larger masses. I have a meterstick horizontally
oriented with bottles of sand on each end. This is
suspended from the ceiling with video tape.
|
|
/\
/ \
/ \
________
0 0

OO OO
(In front) (In back)

I'm finding that it takes an incredibly long time for
the suspended meterstick to find its equilibrium
position. Once it does, I'll move the buckets in
closer to the bottles of sand and see if I can detect
any torque on the meterstick.

My questions are:

1)Do you think the incredibly small Fg would produce
any effect?

2)Have any of you tried this before? If you did, how
did it work?

3) Any suggestions?

--
John Mallinckrodt mailto:ajm@csupomona.edu
Cal Poly Pomona http://www.csupomona.edu/~ajm

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.