Re: Simple Machines B/Compound Machines C
Posted: March 15th, 2015, 9:41 am
A link to a picture of the device I made for our team.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?
Science Olympiad Student Center
https://scioly.org:443/forums/
A link to a picture of the device I made for our team.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?
Keep in mind I said pictures of their devicesboomvroomshroom wrote:You could go in the image gallery.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?
Thanks bernardbernard wrote:A link to a picture of the device I made for our team.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?
I believe those are levels that he uses to see whether the system of levers is in equilibrium or not, for more accuracy.Thanks bernardbernard wrote:A link to a picture of the device I made for our team.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?Could you explain what the little things above the levers are? Also, where would you attach the masses? I don't see hooks
EDIT: nvm i see them, thanks
bernard wrote:A link to a picture of the device I made for our team.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?
Yes, a fixed counterweight would let the second class lever rest in equilibrium, which would hopefully allow for more accurate predictions.goodcheer wrote:bernard wrote:A link to a picture of the device I made for our team.davidkim2106 wrote:Anyone have any pictures of their device?
Bernard, I understand how the first class lever can rest in equilibrium, but how about the second class lever? Do you have a fixed counter-weight attached to it to the right of the fulcrum or do you adjust the first class lever to the point where it can balance the second class lever? Anyone else with idea please help. We just got someone new on this event. Thanks.
But then it might not be considered a true 2nd class lever anymore... more like a hybrid 1st/2nd class lever....bernard wrote: Yes, a fixed counterweight would let the second class lever rest in equilibrium, which would hopefully allow for more accurate predictions.
By the FAQ that states the the 40cm of the class 2 lever is just the distance between the fulcrum and effort points, could I call an 80cm beam a class 2 lever if the load and effort are on the same side of the fulcrum? I suppose the picture of our device I posted a while ago could be considered a hybrid since there is 5cm of meterstick opposite to the 40cm class 2 lever.chalker wrote:But then it might not be considered a true 2nd class lever anymore... more like a hybrid 1st/2nd class lever....bernard wrote: Yes, a fixed counterweight would let the second class lever rest in equilibrium, which would hopefully allow for more accurate predictions.
As always, this isn't the place for official clarifications / comments.... Note that the purpose of that FAQ was to make it easier for people to construct the levers. It's REALLY hard to come up with a design that has the fulcrum exactly at the edge of the beam for example. Having a little bit of extra material overhanging the fulcrum doesn't significantly impact the functionality of the lever.bernard wrote: By the FAQ that states the the 40cm of the class 2 lever is just the distance between the fulcrum and effort points, could I call an 80cm beam a class 2 lever if the load and effort are on the same side of the fulcrum? I suppose the picture of our device I posted a while ago could be considered a hybrid since there is 5cm of meterstick opposite to the 40cm class 2 lever.