Finding the Gravitational Constant: Cavendish Experiment

Finding the Gravitational Constant Cavendish ExperimentMatt Cramb The sample explored the tier of gravitational attr work, how it was discovered and derived from observations and experimentations, and attempted to recreate those initial tests. This was done to determine whether an emergence in rush leading ontogenesis the force of gravity, a disceptation which was dungeoned by the experimental selective learning, contempt the numerous flaws inherent in the experimental design.Finding GravityGravity is one of the four aboriginal forces of nature, and Nave, R (2017) to a fault explains that it is the force responsible for constructing and regulating the movement of galaxies, stars, and planets.In 1687, Isaac Newton formulated his famous Equation of Universal Gravitation based, purported by Physics Classroom (2016), on an injury in an apple orchard. whatever(prenominal) the circumstances, it had far reaching impacts on the science of the time. But something crucial was a bsentminded from his equation.Newton knew from scientists before him that the force exerted by gravity grew weaker as infinite between objects affected by gravity increased, or represented mathematic all(prenominal)yWhereThis was nonhing new for science of the time, that Newtons major discovery was that of the catholicity of gravity, which indicated that all objects which possess mass also exerted gravitational forces. This discovery direct to a nonher addition to the equation, beca purpose Kurtus, R (2016) reports Newton realized that objects with less mass exerted weaker gravitational forces.Therefore, he postulated thatWhereTo convert this theory into an equation, Newton only pauperisationful one frequently piece. A constant was ask to purpose the ask gravitational forces on objects. This constant was called the gravitational constant, or G.In the equation, G presents as followsHowever, the rate for G wasnt embed until much later, by lord Henry Cavendish, over a cen tury later. The Cavendish ExperimentIn Cavendishs experiment, check to Shectman, J (2003) dickens orbital cavitys were attached at opposite ends of a spear which is hang up from the ceiling of a custom-built shed by a thin fit out. Masses be pose to the sides of the spheres, to attract them, exerting gravitational forces competent to rotate the disseminate to a measurable degree. Cavendish metric the movement of the radio beam of light use a telescope impersonateed far from the shed.To use this apparatus to calculate G, a formula mustiness be created, using torque, oscillation period, complication constant, inertia and gravitational forces.The torque on the beam hind end be mensurable by the angle of deflection of the k nontiness wire, using Hookes lawWhereHowever, torque can also be peckerd by the hobby expressionWhereTorque can also be calculated as a vector product with this equationWhereAnd because, in this experimental setup, r and F argon perpendicular vectors, at that place are cardinal F, and r is half the length of the beamCombining these two formula unitedly endings in the undermentionedFrom Newton, the formula for force was also known, and could be substituted in from to a high place.The deformation constant was measured by Cavendish by disturbing the beam, indeed measuring the period of oscillation. This can be done using the down the stairs equation.WhereThis moment of inertia can be calculated from the sum moments of the two spheres at each end of the beam.The moment of inertia for each sphere is calculated by the equationSince each sphere had equal mass, the integrality I is equal toInserting this into the period formula and rearranging for the complicatedness coefficient givesWhen inserted into the formula for torsion coefficient higher up, gives the followingWith this equation, the measurements needed to be interpreted from the experimental apparatus areVariableExplanationUnitsmRadmkgs apply the experimental setup described above, according to Kurtus, R (1997) Cavendish driven preliminary examination Trials Failed AttemptsFor this experiment, two previous(prenominal) iterations of the experiment were run. The first was to determine the inclemency of running such an experiment, and the stake was a full-scale experiment which provided no useful data.The first experiment was done using a meter-long beam and tennis balls attached to either end. A laser beam reflected get through a mirror attached to the torsion wire, giving a payoff of angle.However, in practice, this rig did not come to a final remaining position so that the period of oscillation could be measured. Instead the torque already present in the twine torsion wire twisted the beam against a chair leg, preventing it from fully coming to a balance of forces.The second experiment had results as followsVariableExplanationUnitsResultsm1.25-101Rad9.0-10-2m1.765kg1.6s2.25-102m3kg-1s-22.419-102The apprize for G calculated by t his experiment was vastly different to Cavendishs value of . This meant the experiment was concluded to be not statistically valid, for a variety of reasons.These experiments were refined and transformed into the final experimental setup.Theoretical entropy exploitation Newtons formula for each of the three experiments which forget be conducted can determine the value for .To do this, the masses and space must be known ahead of time. These can be found below, and copied in the results section.OBJECT muss (kg)Mass of SinkersMass of Cup 1Mass of Cup 2Mass of Bowling PinsUsing Cavendishs above listed value of G, the projected data can be calculated. piling (kg) impel OF GRAVITY (Later, these will be compared with the experimental data.Based on the above accent inquiry, the magnitude of gravity in the system will increase proportional to an increase in the mass of the large masses.Or, as increases, will proportionally increase.This hypothesis has been entertained by the backgrou nd research, which has guided its innovation through empirical data, and researched phenomena.However, because of the precision required to obtain an accurate result, research indicates the final calculated measurement for G will be vastly different from the real value.25.5cm concentrate beam12cm length of fishing line2x sinkers of mass 3.28g2x elastic cups2x bowling pins of mass 1.6kg1x stopwatch1x ruler1x camera1x plastic storage box approx. 70cm x 40cm 1m2 wire meshSafetyBefore the experiment was conducted, a thorough encounter assessment planner was completed and approved. Measures were taken to ensure no ill-use came to experimenter through heavy masses falling or water causation a slipping hazard.These measures includedConstant supervisionCorrect and divert use of safety equipment, which in this experiment meant wearing a laboratory coat throughoutSafe handling of heavy masses and water.A risk assessment matrix provided by the Department of Education (2017) was also co mpleted.LikelihoodConsequenceInsignificantMinorModerateMajor littleAlmost CertainMediumMediumHigh naturalExtremeLikely downheartedMediumHighHighExtreme viable unhopefulMediumHighHighHighUnpotentialLowLowMediumMediumHighRareLowLowLowLowMediumThe likelihood of injury was unlikely, as experimenter has previous experience. The consequence was also minor, indicating injuries not requiring medical attention (i.e. bruises, minor cuts). Therefore, the good risk was low, which indicates no further control measures need be impute into place. However, in due diligence the above measures were pacify implemented.ProcedureFirstly, to spring air flow a major disturbance in the precedent trials, the system was constructed inside a large plastic storage container. This container was placed a distance away from walls, to reduce the effects of other gravity sources.Then, two sinkers, whose masses were known, were attached to either end of a support beam, which was hung from the top of the box by a length of fishing line. This was suspended by the wire mesh atop the box.The fishing line was chosen as twine had been used in preliminary trials as the torsion wire, and had been shown to not be effective due to the latent torque.After let the system come to a complete residuum, it was disturbed by gently pushing one end of the support beam. The period of oscillation was measured by a stopwatch. To further reduce misrepresentation of data, six measurements were taken and averaged.The system was indeed allowed to come to rest again, and a measurement of the rest position taken by a camera from above. This would eliminate the need to reach into the box to take measurements and thus disturb the experiment. It also provided clearer results.Then, the two cups were introduced to the system 6.25cm away from the end of the support beam, at opposing sides and ends, so the attractive forces of the masses rotated the beam. The cups were initially filled with 250g of water, then 500g, t hen the cups were swapped with the 1.6kg bowling pins.Each iteration of the experiment, when the system came to rest for a third time, a measurement of the final rest position was taken using the camera.This data was recorded and processed by comparing photographs of the different rest positions and calculating angle of deflection. The results were then tabulated.Images of the experimental setup.MassOBJECTMASS (kg)Mass of SinkersMass of Cup 1Mass of Cup 2Mass of Bowling PinsPeriod of OscillationTEST NUMBER check (s)120222321421521621Avg.21 correspondence PositionTEST NUMBERMASSES USEDANGLE OF parenthesis (Rad)1No mass used0.002Cup 19.653Cup 23.314Bowling Pins1.00OTHER infoVariableExplanationUnitsResultsm0.0625m0.255Magnitude of GravityUsing Newtons formula for each of the three experiments will determine the value for .Firstly, the value for G for each equation must be calculated.MASS (kg) take to be OF G (Now the force for gravity can be calculated.MASS (kg)FORCE OF GRAVITY (find ingsThe experiment shows that using Cavendishs method to determine the value for G was flawed, but that the experiment could have obtained an accurate value for G.These flaws will be examined below, but a basic rundown and description of data obtained will be apt(p) here.Magnitude of GravityAs can be seen by the graph at the end of the results section, the magnitudes of gravity measured do not accurately match the abstractive data obtained.These determine, and the values for G, are vastly different to that originally measured by Cavendish (found in background research), likely because of the various(a) flaws in the experimental design, which will be discussed in the Evaluation section.However, the results far more accurately correlate to the theoretical values than those in previous experiments, and the average contractlines do indicate that the trend matches that predicted.At 250g, the first mass, the experimental data differs wildly from the theoretical.Experimental entropyT heoretical DataAt 500g, the second mass, it drastically spikes, much higher than either of the other points.Experimental DataTheoretical DataAt 1600g, the final point, the data dips down lower than anticipate again.Experimental DataTheoretical DataIts unclear from the background research conducted whether Cavendishs data deviated so much, but he also had a larger rig, which as discussed below, whitethorn have helped his experiments accuracy.Period of OscillationThe average period measured was 21 seconds, which is far shorter than the fifteen minutes measured by Cavendish. This is probably mostly due to the shorter beam, the effect of which can be seen with the torsion coefficient formula derived from the background research.The squared length of the beam demonstrates an exponential relationship between the torsion coefficient, an increase in which will decrease the period, which can be seen in the following formula for period of oscillationRecording EquipmentThe equipment used to measure the period of oscillation may not have changed in the two hundred years since Cavendishs original experiment, however all other written text equipment did. A camera and digital analysis was used to take measurements, which may have causes slight issues with the orientation of frames in the software, but overall was more accurate than taking the measurements by hand when compared to the preliminary tests when this was done.The lengths were taken with a tape, and so were only calculated to two decimal places. However, this will likely not impact greatly on the results of the experiment, which can be shown mathematically.Using the same formula as above, and two length measurements as given below, the difference can be theorised.cmValue for kK (2 decimal places)Length 1 (two decimal places) (given by experiment)6.252.354972.35Length 2 (six decimal places)6.2478322.353342.35Limitations RecommendationsThere are several reasons for why the value for G determined by this exper iment differed so greatly from Cavendishs value, and these expose various flaws and strengths in the original design. They will be examined each using the following methodNameExplanation of FlawEffectsComparison to Preliminary TrialsComparison to Cavendish ExperimentRecommendation/RefinementMeasuring InaccuraciesVarious opportunities for erroneousness arose when observing and recording data in the experiment. Most of these examples, such as misreporting the period of oscillation by a fraction, would have a m estimable Issues in Patient Information Case StudyEthical Issues in Patient Information Case StudyPeeking in the EMR for all the justifiedly reasonsPatrick BobstTechnology has embedded itself into mundane brio and is integrated into everyday human activity. Corporate scandals, violations of intellectual property rights, and violations of customer, long-suffering, employee hiding is uncovering contend dilemmas and honourable decision-making in every the industry around th e globe. Technological advancements not only increase the impact of carelessness, foolishness, recklessness and even malevolence but also enable anyone with access to learn much more and much faster than ever before(Curtain, 2005). Ethics enables individuals with the guidance of rational flackes to fuck off the right justifiable decision. Ethical choices distinguished from other choices include the continual bout of fundamental values, as well as incorporating scientific inquiry that may be influential but cannot provide answers(Curtain, 2005). Most notably, ethical choices involve placing one value above another, and because values are of the utmost importance, any decision reached will have profound, multiple and often on expect impact on human concern(Curtain, 2005).Case studyJessica Parker is a breastfeed that has the burdening task to solely support her three small children and is in unholy financial distress since her divorce. Her ex-wife, Frank Parker has evaded court uniform child support obligations for over a year and has been able to evade authorities with no known address or phone number. Jessicas house is roughly to be foreclosed upon, and her automobile repossessed. Although Jessica periodically picks up extra shifts, utilizes friends instead of childcare, and despite making multiple drastic cuts to her budget, she is unable to overcome the perils of increasing debt. star day a friend that informs her that Frank Parker received stitches in her indispensableness department after a minor motor vehicle calamity (MVA). The next day she worked Jessica looked up her ex-husband in the EMR and proceeded to gather his needed contact information. Jessica immediately passes along the phone number, accompaniment address and appointment information to her attorney which in construction succeeded in the actions of court arranged child support payments being automatically garnished from his wages along with a judgment for past due child support in an step that will stabilize her current debt.Ethical dilemmaWhen a brace chooses the responsibilities of being a parent, it is a commitment for life whether they are living together or separately. Jessica is in a stressful environment where she holds the cargo hold of the children and the other parent is legally obligated to provide financial support to ensure a safe and healthy environment for the children. Jessica is clearly assay financially and the situation will continue to worsen without the court ordered child support from ex-husband. She solved the dilemma of finding her ex-husbands whereabouts by utilizing the hospitals EMR. By utilizing the EMR in an in reserve manner, Jessica violated multiple alimentation of the American Nurses Association (ANA) code of morality including provision 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. These provisions undertake the forbearing ofs right to loneliness, the duty to maintain confidentiality of all patient information, and the protection of partic ipants in research(Nursing World website, 2011). A breach of the Health insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) may have been committed under the privacy rule where patients have a right to expect privacy protections that decide the use and disclosure of their health information(McGonigle Mastrian, 2012, p. 173). However, the privacy rule permits illegitimate disclosures of protected health information to sedanlic health authorities for condition public health activities including. child abuse or neglect(Lee Gostin, 2009, p. 82). viable AlternativesAt the point when Jessica suspected her husband great power have been in the EMR system, an alternate path might be (1) hiring a private investigator. The ex-husbands MVA is a matter of police public record and private investigators are learn and have the resources to find information in ways others might not think about (2) contact the local child support enforcement post with the information of the MVA (3) contact her attorney for a medical record subpoena. mull over Ethical ArgumentsIn this scenario, Jessica showed a clear breach to hospital policy, statutory and common-law duties of confidentiality and privacy. However, Jessicas goods were dealing with the resolution of what is right and ravish in her own situation creating the dilemma of what is chastely right and not looking at the evidence that indicates that she is also morally wrong. Depending on the area and point of view, the term value can have different meanings. Jessicas objective moral values may include justice, freedom and welfare, which might be her basis for decision-making. The welfarism normative ethical approach applies to Jessica situation where moral philosophy is viewed and centrally concerned with the welfare or well-being of individuals, and where advancing the crush interests of individuals makes the most fundamental sense(Keller, 2009). The ethical theoretical Principlistic approach validates itself with its universally know moral principles of autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice(Bulger, 2009). Autonomy considers the right of the individual to choose for themselves, nonmaleficence asserts an obligation not to inflict harm intentionally, beneficence refers to actions performed that contribution to the welfare of others, and justice refers to the fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment in light of what is due or owed to a person(McGonigle Mastrian, 2012). Principlism is a unified moral approach in which the addition of each monger strengthens the legitimacy of each of the other principles to the extent that each principal is undertake and balanced using independent criteria and yet each principal still supports each of the other principles(Bulger, 2009, p. 121). In Jessicas scenario she might consider that it is generally morally right to obtain her ex-husbands contact information in the EMR because this action obeys the role moral rule what is due or owed which in t urn is derived from the principal justice. The crux of the dilemma lies within Jessicas responsibility of providing her family a safe and healthy environment with financial stability, her utilization of the hospitals EMR balanced with her ex-husbands medical record confidentiality rights.Investigate, Compare, and Evaluate Alternatives to himIn Jessicas case, there is no ambiguity in our nursing code of ethics when it comes to maintaining patient privacy and confidentiality. All the alternative methods provided to pursue the coveted contact information are the only acceptable legal pathways. These alternative methods safeguard patient rights, do not violate policy and laws, do not result in bad consequences, nor do they nullify rules and regulations. Each alternative provides expected outcomes that far exceed the risk of harm that include civil liability, line loss, disciplinary action by state licensing boards, and even criminal investigations and sanctions(Hader Brown, 2010, p. 2 70). chosen alternativeSimply from a financial standpoint the alternative chosen for Jessica would be to contact the local child support services agency. Hiring a private investigator or attorney can be address prohibitive especially with her financial difficulties.ConclusionFrom nursing school until retirement, nurses are taught there is no leeway when it comes to HIPAAs integrity and confidentiality of patient information. A problem with ethics is the logic of argument being used in moral deliberation and moral justification(Reidl, Wagner, Rauhala, 2005). Jessicas deliberation of moral reasoning resorted from weighting only the positive self-fulfilling gain and omitted possible alternatives in her morally perplexing situation as well as her personal reasons in moral justification. Principlists consider principles to be at the heart of moral life negotiating between the four fundamental principles and the unique nature of specific moral situations on the other(McCarthy, 2003). W ith the technological advancements in todays society the ethical questions evolve around how individuals choose to use or abuse their tools. healthcare informatics intersects healthcare, ethics and informatics and all practitioners, for the publics good, must be bound by additional ethical, moral, and legal responsibilities (Curtain, 2005). Barrie Effy (2008), conclude in their study that ethical education in information technology changed attitudes and help students in affective learning, an important and necessary component in the overall learning process(Barrie Effy, 2008).ReferencesBarrie, L., Effy, O. (2008). Ethical issues in information technology Does education make a difference. Inter field Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(2), 67-83. http//dx.doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2008040106Bulger, J. W. (2009). An approach towards applying principlism. Ethics Medicine, 25, 125-125.Curtain, L. L. (2005). Ethics in informatics. Nursing Administration Qua rterly, 29, 349-352. http//dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006216-200510000-00010Hader, A., Brown, E. (2010). Patient privacy and social media. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, 78, 270-274. Retrieved from http//www.aana.com/newsandjournal/Documents/legbrfs_0810_p270-274.pdfKeller, S. (2009). Welfarism. Philosophy Compass, 4(1), 82-95. http//dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00196.xLee, L., Gostin, L. (2009). Ethical collection, storage, and use of public health data A proposal for a national privacy protection. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(1), 82-84. http//dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.958McCarthy, J. (2003). Principlism or narrative ethics must we choose between them? Medical Humanities, 29(2), 65-71. http//dx.doi.org/10.1136/mh.29.2.65McGonigle, D., Mastrian, K. G. (2012). Nursing informatics and the substructure of knowledge (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA Jones and Bartlett.Nursing World website. (2011). http//www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/Ethics Standards/CodeofEthicsforNurses/Code-of-Ethics.pdfReidl, C., Wagner, I., Rauhala, M. (2005). Examining ethical issues of IT in healthcare. Retrieved from http//www.sfu.ca/act4hlth/pub/working/Ethical-Issues.pdf