Caroline Veazey Partner: Ingrid Milera Date of Lab: September 25, 2013 Lab Report Due: October 2, 2013

Lab Experiment III: Equilibrium of a Particle Objective The main purpose of this lab is to analyze the validity of Newtons 1st Law. Description A force table, or a circular table, was utilized in this experiment. Having moveable pulleys along its circumference, the circular table has markings that allowed for knowledge of the precise angular position of the pulleys. These pulleys were gathered by a centering pin, and around this pin was a small metal ring, acting as the point mass. The ring had four strings attached, which went over the pulleys and had weight hangers attached. Weights were added to the hangers until the ring was centered on the force table.

Theory Newtons first law, contained in his second law, states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. In this lab, an inertial coordinate system was analyzedone that is not accelerating or rotating (with respect to the fixed stars). It will always either be at rest or moving at a constant velocity with respect to the fixed stars. Newtons first law continues to state that if all the forces on a point mass (in the center of the force table, for example) add up to zero, the velocity will remain constant in an inertial coordinate system. If the velocity is zero (at rest in the inertial coordinate system), the particle is said to be in equilibrium. As stated above, Newtons first law is found within the second law: Newtons second law: if for a point mass m: F = i Fi (the vector sum of all forces acting on mass) is zero, then F= m, with a=acceleration of the mass.

Procedure Part 1: Measurements were made of the line formed by the Air Track, and the angle was calculated after raising the Air Track with the thinner of the two wooden blocks. The smaller glider, placed 0.4 m away from the motion sensor, was released a number of times, as DataStudio produced position, velocity, and acceleration graphs. The graphs were then analyzed in an effort to define the relationship between the three variables. Parts 2 and 3: Measuring the gliders acceleration, there were two separate trials: changing mass (varying the two gliders)/same , and changing /changing mass. In this experiment, it was assumed that acceleration remained constant; in part 2, this assumption was analyzed. In part 3, only one mass and one was used to analyze the graphs after letting the glider hit the end of the Air Track three times. Data Calculations 3.1 Distance between single screw and 2 supporting screws at other end: 127.5 cm Thick block: 3.3 cm Thin block: 2.0 cm = (for small angles) sin=tan =y/x =2.0 cm/127.5 cm 0.015686 degrees sin=tan =y/x =3.3 cm/127.5 cm 0.02588235 Glider 1 (small, gold)= 73.2 g Glider 2 (large, red)= 308.1 g

sin=tan =y/x =(2.0+3.3 cm)/127.5 cm 0.04156863

Average Acceleration in Graph 1 (Acceleration vs. time) =(Mean of y) = ((Final VelocityInitial Velocity) / time)= 0.1 m/s2 Slope of Acceleration in Graph 1 (Acceleration vs. time)= (Change in y/change in x): -0.638 +/- 0.36 (m/s2 / s) N (Power) of Position in Graph 1 (Position vs. time)= 2.04 +/- 0.4 3.2 Mass and Dependence Different Mass, Same : Acceleration Min (m/s2) -1.0 -18.2 -1.1 -6.3 -0.4 Min (m/s2) -2.6 -8.6 -0.4 -13.3 -0.3 Max (m/s2) 1.0 10.4 1.1 6.3 0.6 Max (m/s2) 2.5 7.6 1.3 8.0 0.4 Mean (m/s2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Mean (m/s2) 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Trial (Small glider) 1 2 3 4 5

Trial (Large glider) 1 2 3 4 5

Different Mass, Different Angle Min (m/s2) Trial (Small glider) 1 2 3 4 5 Trial (Large glider) 1 2 -0.1 0.1 -0.5 -0.1 2.0 Min (m/s2) -3.4 -0.1 Max (m/s2) 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 Max (m/s2) 5.4 0.6 Mean (m/s2) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Mean (m/s2) 0.2 0.2

3 4 5 3.3

-0.3 -1.2 -0.2

0.7 0.6 0.6

0.2 0.0 0.2

Large wooden block, large glider, allowed to hit end of air track 3 times Trial (Large glider) 1 2 3 4 5 Analysis In analyzing the three graphs in graph set number 1, Min (m/s2) -4.3 -3.1 -3.2 -2.7 -4.7 Max (m/s2) 1.6 2.0 2.2 3.1 2.8 Mean (m/s2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

As the purpose of the lab is to look at the relationship between position, velocity, and acceleration, part two of the lab showed that the assumption that acceleration remained constant was showed to be correct, regardless of the different masses and angles. For example, when comparing the small and large gliders at the same angle, the mean acceleration (for all but one run) was 0.0 m/s2. The one outlier was 0.1 m/s2. The mean acceleration was the same for this angle when the large glider was used. Furthermore, when the two gliders were used at a larger angle, the mean acceleration was 0.2 m/s2 for 9/10 trials run using both the small and larger gliders. The 10th trial (using the larger glider) had a mean acceleration of 0.0 m/s2. Even when using the large glider at the greater angle and allowing the glider to hit the end of the air track three times, the mean acceleration remained constant, 0.0 m/s2, for all five trials. Questions In analyzing the position, velocity, and acceleration graphs in part one, they are similar to what was expected, and also in accordance with Newtons second law, fnet=(mass)(acceleration). The assumption was made that acceleration was to remain constant throughout at the beginning of the experiment, and this can be justified by the mean acceleration found in our data. Additionally, it was presented in theory that in the one dimensional field, position and velocity could be treated as scalars.

Yes, the graphs are related. The velocity graph is the derivative of the graph of position, and the acceleration graph is the derivative of the graph of velocity. This is seen through the formulas given in theory: if velocity is dx/dt, and the acceleration dv/dt, which leads to d2x/dt2, it leads to the equation for parabolic position and linear velocity. Using the derived equations: x=x0+v0t + 1/2 at2 (position), and v=v0 + at, one can see the relationship between the graphs. Yes, it is reasonable that the velocity curve is noisier than the position curve, and the acceleration curve noisier than the velocity curve because the curves are derivatives of one another. The position curve should be the smoothest, and since the velocity graph is its derivative, it would be more noisy (position=m/s, velocity m/s2). The acceleration is given by the slope of the velocity graph because acceleration is the derivative of velocity: velocity is dx/dt, and the acceleration dv/dt. This is y/x (rise/run), the equivalent of slope. For the acceleration graph, the mean acceleration was given as -0.111 m/s2. The slope was given as -0.638 +/- 0.36 m/s2, showing that the two values are not equivalent. In the position graph, the n(power) was given as 1.44, yet it should have been closer to two in theory because of the acceleration component (x=x0+v0t + 1/2 at2). In Part 3, yes, the velocity crosses the x-axis where predictedit is equivalent to when the glider hits the end of the Air Track and changes directions. The curves are not the same from bounce to bounce because each of the three variables changes: the glider does not return to the exact same position, which changes the velocity, and the acceleration is also decreasing as the glider is losing momentum. Error Analysis The main source of experimental error for this lab would be the calibration of the equipment and how it was used throughout the lab. The motion sensor, in collaboration with the gliders along the Air Track, was used in the estimation of position, acceleration, and velocity. The motion sensor could have been placed at various angles, and there could have been noise produced by the graph that limited accurate analysis of results. Because no calculations were done manually, the set-up of the equipment and performance during the various trails could have the source of the slight differences in two of the mean accelerations, while extremely small. Additionally, in the first calculations, the masses of the gliders and wooden blocks were estimates, and were then used in calculating the angles. Because we were using small angles, sin=tan was used, which is not always true. Conclusion This lab solidified my knowledge of the relationship between position, time, and acceleration; I was aware and confident in the formulas, but comparing graphs showed

how they are interrelated and dependent upon one another. Additionally, it lead me to start thinking about Newtons Second Law: Fnet=(mass)(acceleration). In the lab, we varied the factors of Fnet through the changing of angles (raising the Air Track with wooden blocks), as well as changing the mass with the various gliders. The ratio of Fnet/mass stayed constant, as we measured the mean acceleration and it showed no dramatic variance as the mass and force were changed. Our only value that did not agree with accepted values was the n(power) of the position graph. My prediction is that this was due solely to equipment and accuracy and precision of the experiment being conducted.