- #1
- 6,724
- 431
Ca. 1996 a colleague bragged to me about an undergraduate lab he'd worked out where they did a high-precision measurement of g (I think he claimed 3 sig figs) using an index card, a pin, and a stopwatch. He didn't tell me any details. I've long since lost contact with him, but I was thinking today about how to do it. Here's the best method I was able to come up with. Lay a ruler along a diagonal of the card and measure the length of the diagonal d. Make a pinhole with the pin along the main diagonal, and find the pinhole's distance L from the center. Measure the period of the pendulum. Optionally measure its Q. Then g is given by:
[tex]g=\left(\frac{4\pi^2L}{T^2}\right)\left[1+\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{d}{L}\right)^2\right]\left[1-1/(4Q^2)\right]^{-1}[/tex]
I couldn't find an index card around the house, so I used a postcard, which had a mailing label on it that I couldn't remove cleanly. Its Q seemed pretty large, so I didn't bother with the correction factor. The result I got was g=9.40 +- .07 m/s2 (random error due to time) +- .1 m/s2 (random error due to L). Anyone want to give it a shot and see if they can get high-precision results?
As far as I can tell, there are two systematic errors that are going to be hard to get rid of. (1) The card may not oscillate perfectly in its own plane; it may twist a little. (2) The treatment above assumes a damping torque that is proportional to the angular frequency, [itex]\tau \propto \omega[/itex]. But this is really kinetic friction, which is probably independent of [itex]\omega[/itex].
Possibly #2 could be gotten rid of by measuring periods at different amplitudes.
[tex]g=\left(\frac{4\pi^2L}{T^2}\right)\left[1+\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{d}{L}\right)^2\right]\left[1-1/(4Q^2)\right]^{-1}[/tex]
I couldn't find an index card around the house, so I used a postcard, which had a mailing label on it that I couldn't remove cleanly. Its Q seemed pretty large, so I didn't bother with the correction factor. The result I got was g=9.40 +- .07 m/s2 (random error due to time) +- .1 m/s2 (random error due to L). Anyone want to give it a shot and see if they can get high-precision results?
As far as I can tell, there are two systematic errors that are going to be hard to get rid of. (1) The card may not oscillate perfectly in its own plane; it may twist a little. (2) The treatment above assumes a damping torque that is proportional to the angular frequency, [itex]\tau \propto \omega[/itex]. But this is really kinetic friction, which is probably independent of [itex]\omega[/itex].
Possibly #2 could be gotten rid of by measuring periods at different amplitudes.