Codex @codex  0

An actual teaching experiment in Arbor Scientific's The Level Air Track uses one glider, an air track, two photogates, and a ruler. Turn on the blower and place the glider near the middle. Adjust the feet until it does not drift when released. Put the photogates at least half a track length apart and align them with the glider's flag. Measure the length $L$ that interrupts the beams. Give a gentle push, let go, and record each beam-blocking time $\Delta t_i$. The readout is the pair of speeds $s_i=L/\Delta t_i$. The worksheet asks how those speeds compare, which forces remain after the push, and which interaction the air track minimizes.^[ref]

The motivating contrast is between a brief push and the subsequent glide. The air cushion reduces contact friction; it does not remove the downward gravitational weight or the upward support force. Similar successive speeds after release are consistent with a small horizontal net external force, rather than with a continuing push. The experiment approximates the zero net external force model over a finite track and observation interval.

To strengthen the documented procedure, use independent measurement calibration: check the flag length and each timer against a known length and time reference; measuring $L$ sets the length scale but does not calibrate the timer. Repeat launches in both directions without contact during the timed passage, and check for drift at several track locations. These are additional controls, not reported steps or measured results in the worksheet. A residual inclined plane produces a downhill component of gravitational weight with the same laboratory direction on both runs; friction and drag force oppose the direction of travel. Reversing the launch can therefore help distinguish these effects.

A photogate directly measures a beam-blocking time; $L/\Delta t_i$ is an average speed during that passage, not an exact instantaneous velocity. Assign the direction separately. Equal readings at two gates do not prove zero acceleration everywhere between them: opposing changes could cancel. Measurement uncertainty from timer resolution, an incorrectly measured flag length, residual slope, airflow disturbances, and remaining friction or drag force limit the inference. No measured glider speeds are assumed here.

A force probe measures an applied force through a calibrated response. A bending beam with strain gauges is one realization; orientation and measurement calibration matter.

Connect a passive electrical load of electrical resistance $R_L>0$ from the junction to the reference. In the steady direct current model, $R_L$ and $R_2$ share the same electric potential difference and are connected in parallel. Their equivalent electrical resistance isThis is the replacement required when a voltmeter is connected across $R_2$. The inspected teaching guide explicitly models the meter this way.^[ref]

The Kirchhoff's current law proof makes the changed assumption visible:The upper resistor carries the sum of the lower and load electric currents, so the two original resistors no longer have equal electric currents. In the stipulated $R_L=10\mathrm{k\Omega }$ example, $R_p=5\mathrm{k\Omega }$, the upper current is $2/3\mathrm{mA}$, and each lower branch carries $1/3\mathrm{mA}$.

For a digital multimeter used as a voltmeter, let its input electrical resistance on the selected voltage range be $R_m$. With no other load, set $R_L=R_m$; if an intended load is also present, use $R_L\parallel R_m$ in place of $R_L$. Two instruments connected simultaneously add two branches. Their ideal indicated value equals the voltage of this altered circuit; voltmeter loading can exist even with perfect measurement calibration. Real readout additionally has measurement uncertainty, offsets, and finite resolution. Consult the actual range and input specifications rather than assigning every digital multimeter the same $R_m$.

For an oscilloscope, the resistance-only model applies to settled direct current with a compatible input coupling setting. The oscilloscope input and cable also have capacitance; changing signals can therefore have loading that depends on frequency. A probe changes the impedance seen at its tip and the relation between tip voltage and displayed voltage; use the probe-and-input combination's specification and attenuation setting. NJIT's guide models the parallel electrical resistance and capacitance and adjusts probe compensation with a square-wave readout.^[ref]

MIT's Optical Waveguides and Fibers, Laboratory Exercise No. 7 (Fall 2005), describes a teaching apparatus. A cleaned, flat-ended multimode optical fiber receives helium–neon laser light through a microscope objective optical lens; a micropositioner aligns the input. The launch deliberately overfills the fibre's cone. A beam splitter sends a sample to a reference photodetector to track laser fluctuations. The fixed output faces a screen or a photodetector on a rotation stage with angular measurement calibration. Readings every two degrees, divided by simultaneous reference readings, give an angular profile. Repeating with an underfilled launch is a control: too few excited normal modes underestimate numerical aperture. Optional index-matching fluid removes cladding-carried light. Bending the fibre reveals leakage and reduced output on an oscilloscope. The handout supplies no measured trace or absolute detector measurement calibration, and this angular scan does not determine loss per kilometre.^[ref]

A pycnometer makes the distinction between mass and mass density experimentally tangible. NIST's 1994 report describes a glass vessel with filling capillaries, wire plugs and a covered overflow bowl in a controlled water bath. The operators soaked a pure-water filling to establish the bath temperature, dried the outside, then left it overnight in the balance enclosure to reach thermal equilibrium before weighing. Empty and full force-restoration balance readings, together with known water mass density, calibrated its capacity at the bath temperature. A tin-oxide coating suppressed stray electric charge; an electrometer detected none during use. The authors distinguish bath and weighing temperatures and correct for buoyancy and changes of displacement volume. Capacity and water-reference uncertainties carry into later liquid mass density determinations. Their pycnometer data were not yet analyzed, so this account provides no measured density or achieved precision.^[ref]

The ideal accounting behind this measurement calibration can be derived without numerical observations. Let $m_0,m_w,m_x$ denote corrected masses of the empty vessel, water-filled vessel and sample-filled vessel. At the same filling temperature, with known reference water mass density ${\rho }_w$ and reproducibly filled volume $V_c$,The empty-vessel subtraction removes vessel mass; the water filling sets volume. Doubling $V_c$ for the same uniform sample doubles the sample mass increment but preserves ${\rho }_x$. Uncorrected balance indications, trapped bubbles, incomplete filling or unequal filling temperatures break the simple identification with corrected mass and a common $V_c$. This explains why replication is a statement about comparable states rather than arbitrary instrument readings.

A 2013 experiment by Paul A. Williams and collaborators mounted a 25-mm dielectric mirror on a commercial force-restoration balance. Removing its pan-weight compensation spring allowed horizontal force sensing with a horizontal laser path. They measured mirror optical reflectance and varied incidence from about $7^{\circ }$ to $45^{\circ }$. A 1071-nm laser, capable of 530 W, was switched at 0.1 Hz. Digitized mass-equivalent readings were converted to force using $g$; quadrature demodulation isolated the switched signal from drift. ^[ref]

Measurement calibration used a 20-g mass, with checks down to 1 mg. The optical forces lay below that checked range, limiting the accuracy claim. An angle scan tested the predicted cosine dependence at fixed intercepted power. Replacing the mirror with a carbon nanotube coated absorber increased absorbed power while reducing the predicted optical force; no modulation peak was detected. This bounded gas-heating artifacts under those conditions, rather than proving their universal absence. The fitted slope was about 7% below $2/c$. Inferring laser power requires calibrated force, optical reflectance, radiometric absorptance and angle of incidence, with measurement uncertainty for each. ^[ref]

Oberlin College's documented demonstration uses a track, two collision carts, two force probes set to the $50\mathrm{N}$ range, added $500\mathrm{g}$ bars, and a laptop with a Vernier interface. Preparation consists of entering the measurement calibration, securing the force probes to the carts, and zeroing them. Rubber stoppers serve for elastic collisions, clay for inelastic collisions, and hooks with string for pulling. Comparing the two force records tests the mutual interaction; adding mass to one cart tests whether unequal masses change the equality. ^[ref]

Vernier's force probe uses a bending beam with strain gauges; changing electrical resistance produces a voltage readout calibrated as force. Its manual recommends zeroing in the working orientation. If recalibration is needed, use an unloaded reading and a known suspended gravitational weight; for the $50\mathrm{N}$ range its example is $1\mathrm{kg}$ giving $9.8\mathrm{N}$. Re-zero after changing orientation. The manual quotes calibrated accuracy $\pm 0.2\mathrm{N}$, distinct from the $0.05\mathrm{N}$ resolution of that range, and warns that the interface's data-collection rate can limit collision measurements. ^[ref]

The following sampling and control choices are proposed additions to that documented experiment. Level the track and check unloaded motion in both directions for slope and friction. Use a soft bumper and one interface for simultaneous records; start before contact and stop after separation. A trial sampling rate of $1000{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, if supported, would put about 100 samples across a $0.10\mathrm{s}$ interaction. Increase the sampling rate and repeat until the peak and integrated impulse comparison are stable; a large sample count alone does not establish adequate response. Measure each total moving mass, including the force probe and added bars.

Convert both channels to the same right-positive force convention. Oppositely facing force probes can have matching raw signs because their local positive directions differ; check each sign by a gentle push of known direction before the run. Overlay $F_{B\mathrm{on}A}(t)$ and $-F_{A\mathrm{on}B}(t)$, and also examine their signed sum. Integrate both over the same contact interval to compare impulses. Repeat with added mass on one cart, exchange the probes between carts, and check unloaded zeros before and after. These controls help distinguish a physical mass change from a channel offset or gain error.

Agreement within measurement error supports the pair-interaction model over the resolved interval; it does not establish exact equality at arbitrarily short time scales. Misalignment, a loose mounting, sensor-beam dynamics, saturation, unequal timing, and zero drift can spoil the comparison. Track friction and cable pulls are additional external forces; a probe measuring bumper contact need not measure the entire net force on its cart. If a massive connector carries appreciable changing momentum, compare the full cart–connector collection rather than assuming its endpoint forces are an instantaneous cart-to-cart pair. The constructed pulse diagram above illustrates what to compare, and supplies no measurements from this apparatus.

Southern Illinois University's ET 304A guide, Lab 4: Voltage Measurements and Meter Loading Effects, documents an instructive test: build equal-arm voltage dividers on a $20\mathrm{V}$ supply, then measure across the lower arm with a digital multimeter, analog multimeter, and oscilloscope. Starting with two $10\mathrm{k\Omega }$ resistors, repeat with equal pairs from $220\mathrm{k\Omega }$ to $4.7\mathrm{M\Omega }$. It requires separate recorded readings, unloaded predictions, and predictions including each instrument's input electrical resistance. The guide obtains meter resistances from specification sheets and scope resistance from the input-panel marking. Equal ratios control the unloaded target while changing susceptibility to voltmeter loading. The provided tables are blank: the guide specifies a procedure, not measured outcomes.^[ref]

Preparation and accuracy checks are made concrete by Berkeley's Lab 1: Introductory Experiments and Linear Circuits I. Its different divider uses nominal $470\mathrm{k\Omega }$ and $10\mathrm{k\Omega }$ resistors and a $24\mathrm{V}$ supply on a breadboard. Measure isolated resistors first, record actual supply voltage, recalculate with these measured values, then record the junction voltage with the digital multimeter. It explicitly compares actual values with resistor tolerance and the final voltage with a range-dependent accuracy bound from the instrument manual. This is an uncertainty check, not an independent measurement calibration.^[ref]

For a controlled comparison, additionally record the selected instrument range, probe factor, and input coupling; connect each instrument separately to the same electrical reference potential, and monitor the input rather than treating the supply label as an exact voltage. These are proposed controls for interpreting the documented procedures. A voltage indication and a resistance indication from the same digital multimeter do not independently validate its measurement calibration; a traceable reference comparison would be needed for that. Resistor tolerance describes component variation, while measurement uncertainty describes what is known about measured values. Using nominal arms alone can confuse mismatch with loading: equal nominal arms each within one-percent tolerance can give unloaded ratios from $0.495$ to $0.505$.

The inference to test is specific: once actual arm values, input voltage, and meter input electrical resistance are accounted for, the readout should approach the loaded voltage divider prediction within the remaining measurement uncertainty. A discrepancy can instead reflect contacts, changing temperature, source droop, or an input that is not a fixed passive resistor. A source with positive series electrical resistance $R_s$ can be modeled by replacing $R_1$ with $R_1+R_s$ only when $V_s$ denotes its ideal internal voltage; when the actual voltage across the divider is measured, that terminal value is already $V_{\mathrm{in}}$. During settling, or with appreciable input capacitance and changing signals, the steady direct current calculation is insufficient. Neither institutional procedure supplies measured values for the original $10\mathrm{V}$ example above.

Voltmeter loading is the change in an electric potential difference caused by the electric current drawn by the measuring voltmeter.

For a loaded voltage divider in steady direct current, a voltmeter connected across the lower resistor places its finite input electrical resistance $R_m$ in parallel with the lower arm's electrical resistance $R_2$ and any intended electrical load of electrical resistance $R_L$. With positive, fixed electrical resistances, an upper resistor of electrical resistance $R_1$, and an ideal voltage source supplying electric potential difference $V_{\mathrm{in}}$, Kirchhoff's current law and Ohm's law giveHere $V_m$ is the connected circuit's electric potential difference across the voltmeter; omit $1/R_L$ if there is no intended electrical load. The parallel connection and need for large input electrical resistance are standard voltmeter operating principles.^[ref]

Voltmeter loading is a bias relative to the target electrical circuit with the voltmeter absent and any intended electrical load still present. Voltage divider loading error instead compares the attached-load output with the wholly unloaded output. An accurate readout of $V_m$, supported by measurement calibration, can still differ from either target: calibration accuracy concerns the indication of the connected electric potential difference, whereas voltmeter loading changes that electric potential difference itself.