Mitul Patel 1

Determination of Gravitational Constant G by Torsion Balance

Mitul Patel

Collaborators: Clark wootton

Applied Physics 1
st
year, St. Mary's University, Twickenham London

Experimental physics APH40000



Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to determine the value of Gravitational Constant G by Torsion Balance.
Gravitational constant is one of the fundamental constant of nature, and the concept of gravitational
constant was proposed by Sir I saac Newton in 1687. But the value of G was not determined experimentally
until late 18
th
century. I t was Lord Henry Cavendish in 1798, who experimentally determined the value by
using torsion balance technique, and this is the technique we used in our experiment to find the value of G.
The experiment was carried out twice to get accurate value and the best value was chosen for further
analysis. Data were collected and the value of Gravitational Constant (G) was calculated to be (6.0 x 10
-11

1.43x 10
-15
)m
3
s
-2
kg
-1
which was close to the actual value i.e. 6.67 x 10
-11
m
3
s
-2
kg
-1
with an accuracy of 11%. I n
this report, I also discuss about the variation in the value of G as shown experimentally by the researchers
around the world.


Introduction
Although gravity is the weakest force of all other three
forces of nature; strong, electromagnetic, and weak force, it
is one of the fundamental force of nature. It is a force that
keeps us on the surface of the Earth, it is a force that keeps
the planet Earth and other planets in our solar system bound
to the Sun. The Concept of gravity began with the fall of an
apple. It was Sir Isaac Newton, who was inspired by the fall
of an apple and proposed the idea of gravity. He proposed
that the gravitational attraction between any two objects is
directly proportional to the product of their masses and
inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
their centers and is represented mathematically in equation
(1).
2
2 1
d
m m
G F (1)
Where G is Gravitational Constant introduced by Newton,
its a measure of the strength of gravity according to the
laws of Isaac Newton.
m1 & m2 are the masses
d is the distance between the two masses

The value of gravitational constant was determined
theoretically by Isaac Newton but was not verified
experimentally. It was verified later in 1798 by Lord Henry
Cavendish, by using torsion balance technique. It all began
with the work of Coulomb. Charles Coulomb did one of the
most important experiment using torsion pendulum. He was
studying the attraction and repulsion between two charges.
The apparatus he used to study the electrostatic force is
shown in figure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic view of the apparatus used by Coulomb to determine
the value of electrostatic force between two spheres.
In his experiment, the torsion balance was an insulating rod
with a metal-coated ball attached to one end, suspended by a
silk thread. The ball was charged with a known charge of
static electricity, and a second charged ball of the same
polarity was brought near it. The two charged balls repelled
one another, twisting the fiber through a certain angle,
which could be read from a scale on the instrument. By
knowing how much force it took to twist the fiber through a
given angle, he was able to calculate the force between the
charged balls and derive his inverse-square proportionality
law.
Mitul Patel 2

Henry Cavendish was inspired by Coulombs experiment
therefore he set out to use the same technique, but slightly
altered in different way as can be seen in the experimental
procedure, to determine the value of gravitational constant
G.
The value of gravitational constant is one of the fundamental
constant of nature and the laws of physics says, the value of
constants does not change no matter where you are in the
universe, but the value of G shows a large variation since it
was first determined experimentally. Physicists around the
world built much more sensitive instruments to determine
the value precisely, and the disparity in measurements of
gravitational constant by different laboratories increased
rather than decreasing. The values by different laboratories
are shown in figure 2.

Figure 2. This chart shows wildly differing values of the gravitational
constant, G, as measured by various high-profile research groups (blue).
The values do not agree even within their error bars. Also shown are two
values of G adopted by the Committee on Data for Science and Technology
(CODATA) as international standards (red). The groups are based at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the University of
Washington (UWASH), the
International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), the Measurement
Standards Laboratory of New Zealand (MSL), the University of Zurich
(UZURICH), the Huazhong University of Science and Technology (HUST)
and the Joint Institute for Astrophysics (JILA). (Credit: Physicsworld
magazine).

The variations in the value of G have forced physicists to
rethink the concept of gravity. Some physicists think that the
value of G could change depending upon where we measure
in space-time. Few physicists think that there could be a new
force at work which might be drifting the value of G.
Researchers are building new experiments currently to
confirm the true value of G.
In our experiment we used equation 2 to calculate the value
of G, this equation is derived in Appendix 1.
L T m
dS b
G
2
1
2 2

(2)
Where,
b distance between the two balls in the equilibrium position

d distance of the small balls from the axis of rotation
S path of the light spot on the wall
m mass of the big ball
T time taken for one complete oscillation
L distance between the wall and the mirror of the balance

The only parameters measured in our experiment were T
and L as others parameters were provided to us by the
demonstrator which are shown in appendix 1.

Experimental Procedure

The apparatus used in our experiment is similar to that used
by Cavendish; we used torsion balance with optical laser for
the measurements and the set-up of our experiment is show
below in figure 3.


Figure 3. Shows the set-up of our experiment- torsion balance, laser.

The torsional element is highly sensitive and the readings
are taken by means of spot light which is from the optical
laser. Due to the sensitivity of the torsional element, it can
affected by the environmental conditions such as
temperature and air flow. Therefore, to protect the balance
from any external contact it is covered in a rectangular metal
case as shown in figure 4.


Figure 4. Schematic view of the rectangular metal case and the two leads.

The rectangular metal case is covered with the glass plate
so the moveable system inside the glass plate can be seen
and adjusted when needed. The rectangular case is fitted
Mitul Patel 3

with a rotary holder underneath and on the top with the
carrier tube for the torsion wire. The torsion wire made of
bronze is suspended and two small leads are attached to the
ends of the torsion wire. The two leaden balls which can be
seen in the figure 4 are placed on the rotary holder. The balls
can be rotated so to get closer to the small ones which is
inside the casing. The rotary must be set up in such a
manner that the centers of the small and big leaden balls are
on the same level. Equilibrium is established once the force
between the small and large sphere is balanced.
A G-clamp is used to secure clamp stand to the bench
allowing the clamp stand to hold the laser, so the beam hits
the mirror and is reflected onto the scale- a meter ruler held
in a clamp stand. Once everything is set up, the suspension
should be unlocked by the demonstrator. The system must
then swing freely and should not hit the plastic planes of
metal casing. At the instant when the suspension is
unlocked, it has so much translation energy that it knocks
against the glass plates and therefore the spot of light
oscillates backwards and forwards between two extreme
values. The equilibrium position of the beam when the
system is completely at rest should be in the center of these
two extreme values, see figure 5.




Figure 5. Shows the laser spot bouncing off the metal case.

Determination of G using Static Method

The Position of the beam on the meter scale has to be noted
when the system is in equilibrium position. Then the large
balls are shifted to give an equal but oppositely directed
torque. The system then will start to move from its
equilibrium position and perform some oscillations before
coming to result at new equilibrium position. The final and
the initial equilibrium position of the beam have to be
marked. At the instant the beam starts to oscillates, the
position of the beam on the scale should be read every 15
seconds, and after 1 or 2 minutes, every 30 seconds or
minutes. After the completion of the experiment, plot a
graph of time against the meter rule reading and the period
can then be derived from the graphic representation of the
measured values, which is just the time taken for one
complete oscillation.

Results and Discussion

The results of this experiment are presented below in Figure
6 and figure 7. The data used for this graph is given in the
appendix 2. Both the results were used to calculate the value
of Gravitational Constant, and the best result was selected
for further analysis and other result was rejected.

Figure 6. This graph is of trial 1. The graph shows the deflection the spot
of light with the function of the period of oscillation. This graph was used
for the further analysis.

Figure 7. This graph is of trial 2. This graph shows the deceleration of the
spot of light with an increase of the period of oscillation.
Trial 1 gave us a value of gravitational constant which was
fairly close to the actually value, therefore this was selected
for the further analysis as this was our best experiment.
Although the value from trial 1 was closer to the actual
value, the experiment was repeated for the second time in
order to achieve very close value. The value of trail 2 was
far from the actual value causing anomalous in our analysis
therefore was rejected.
There were many sources of systematic error in our
experiments. Also there were human errors but there ratio of
systematic error was greater than human which set off the
value of gravitational constant. We saw non-uniform motion
of the beam as also can be seen from the data, the amplitude
decays as the increase period of time but there are points of
greater amplitude during its expected decay. Thus, this was
due to the external forces that were affecting our results such
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
p
o
t

l
i
g
h
t

o
n

t
h
e

s
c
a
l
e
/
m

Time
Deflection of spot light on the scale/m Vs Time/s
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1000 2000 3000
D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
p
o
t

l
i
g
h
t

o
n

t
h
e

s
c
a
l
e
/
m

Time
Defl ecti on of spot l i ght on the scal e/ m Vs
Ti me/ s
Mitul Patel 4

as the vibration of the bench where the experiment was set
up was causing the beam to accelerate. Also not all the
parameters were measured as it was given to us, therefore
we assumed that the values of those parameters were
accurate, this must be one of the error that was taken into
account. There was reaction error at the instant the beam
started to move and at the end when it came to equilibrium.
As the motion of the beam was non-uniform so we did not
measured the final equilibrium position of the beam.
Conclusion
A value of (6.0 x 10
-11
1.43x10
-15
) m
3
s
-2
kg
-1
was obtained
for the Gravitational constant by using the torsion balance
technique. The value was very close to the actual value I.e.
6.67 x 10
-11
m
3
s
-2
kg
-1
. The experimental value was found to
be set off by 11% from the actual value. This suggests that
the experiment was fairly reliable. The data also suggested
the experiment was fairly precise.
The experiment could be improved further; mechanically
isolating the table could reduce the vibration of the table. A
small lens could be used to achieve a small and sharp laser
spot. Since we had limited time to do the experiment and the
setup required long periods to achieve equilibrium therefore
we had limited opportunities in which to perform the actual
experiment. Our poor results are a testament to our limited
resources of time, equipment and experience. Should we
repeat this experiment, we are condent that better accuracy
can be achieved in all measurements.

References

1. Milner, B. (2001). Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
2. Young, H. D., Freedman, R. A., Ford, A. L., & Sears, F.
W. (2012). Sears and zemansky's university physics with
modern physics plus MasteringPhysics with etext (access
card package): With modern physics. Boston, [Mass.]:
Addison-Wesley.















































Mitul Patel 5

Appendix 1
The torsion constant D of the torsional wire can be derived
from the moment of inertia I and the period T when the
torsion pendulum is given by the equation (3)

2
= 4
2
1

(3)
Where moment of inertia of the two balls is given by
equation (4)
= 2
2

2
(4)
Substituting equation (4) into equation (3) and re-arranging
for torsion constant D gives:
D=
8m
2
d
2
T
2
(5)
The torque acting on the system in an equilibrium is given
by = 2, where F is the force of attraction between any
two masses and d is axial distance from the torsion strip of
the small balls in the scale. Due to the twisting of the torsion
strip through an angle of

2
, torque is balanced by a torque
of equal magnitude and opposite direction.
Therefore,
=

2
(6)
The gravitational force between two masses is given by
equation (1) as was introduced in the introduction.
Substituting equation (1) into = 2 gives:
= 2 = 2

2
(7)
Substituting equation (5) into (6) then back into (7) give
=
2
2

2
(8)
The angle between the two equilibrium position is given by
as can be seen from the figure. The angle through
which the system has turned was double due to the reflection
of the beam, therefore
=

2
(9)
Substituting equation (9) into equation (8) gives the
following the equation
G=

2
dSb
2
m
1
T
2
L

This equation was used to calculate the value of
gravitational constant.
The parameters provided by the demonstrator are as follows;
d= 0.05m, b= 41mm, m1= 1.5kg, S= 5cm



Appendix 2
The results obtained for this experiment are given table 1
and table 2.
Time / s
Meter rule reading /
cm
15.8 56
30.6 86
46.6 89
60.8 69
75.4 48
90.5 35
105.6 47
120.5 58
151.1 78
180.6 92.5
210.4 100
240.8 90
270.7 76.5
300.7 60.5
330.6 43.5
360.5 36
390.4 47
420.5 55.5
450.8 62
480.6 66
512.4 47.5
540.7 37.5
574.9 33.5
600.7 41
631.4 46.5
661.9 51
692.4 53.2
722.5 53.5
753.9 49
784.6 44.8
815.3 39.5
845.8 33.5
876.3 35
906.9 38.4
937.4 40.5
968 41.9
998.9 42
1029.3 41.2
1059.8 39.5
1090.5 37.3
1121 34.5
1151.5 33
Mitul Patel 6

1182.1 38.6
1212.8 40.9
1274.9 39.2
1335.5 35
1396.1 33.8
1456.6 35.3
1517.2 34.6
1578 32.5
1639.3 35.5
1699.7 36.9
1760.3 35.6
1820.8 32.5
1881.7 38.5
1942.2 42
2002.8 41.4
2063.2 37.2
2123.8 32.5
2184.4 34.2
2245 33.7
2305.9 32.2
2368.1 32.5
2428.5 32.7
2489.1 34.5
2549.7 34.1
2610.3 32.1
2671 36.2
2731.8 37.2
2792.3 35.7
2852.8 32.5
2913.3 48.5
Table 1. The data obtained for trail 1
Time / s
Meter rule reading /
cm
15 39.5
30 46
45 53
60 58.5
75 64
90 68
105 72
120 74.5
135 76
150 77
165 76.8
180 75.5
240 64
300 43.5
360 62.5
420 97
480 62.8
540 36
600 48.7
660 54.2
720 52
780 43.7
840 32.2
910 32.5
960 35.6
1020 38.5
1080 38.1
1140 35.1
1200 35.1
1260 41.7
1320 43.7
1380 41.4
1445 35
1500 34.3
1560 36.5
1620 36
1680 33.6
1740 36.6
1800 41.2
1860 41.9
1920 38.8
1980 33.1
2040 36.5
2100 38.5
2160 37.6
2220 34.3
2280 40
2340 51
2400 54.2
2460 50.2
2520 40.8
2580 36.5
2640 49.8
2700 54.5
Table 2. The data obtained for trail 2