Physics Report

Lab #1 Measurements

Date of Investigation Date of Submission

: 17 JULY 2012 : 23 JULY 2012

Report by

1. Calvin Ng Kah Joon 2. Samuel Wong Chang Bing

Purpose:
The purpose is to determine the relationship between the acceleration due to gravity of an object on an inclined plane and the angle of inclination.

Theory:
Basic units are the fundamental units of measure from which all other units are derived from. There are seven basic units, which are metre, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, candela, and mole. These units are used to measure length, mass, time, current, temperature, light intensity and amount of substance respectively. Derived units are units that are formed form the combination and/or manipulation of basic units. Examples of derived units are metre per second for velocity, Hertz for frequency and Newton for force. The number of derived units is unlimited. [1] Physical quantities are properties that can be measured quantitatively. The standard description of a physical quantity is a numerical value followed by a unit(basic or derived unit). A scalar quantity is a physical quantity that has only magnitude. Examples of scalar quantities in classical physics are mass, temperature, speed, energy, and time. On the other hand, a vector quantity is a physical quantity that has both magnitude and direction. Examples of vector quantities in classical physics are velocity, force, magnetic field, and acceleration. In dimensions greater than one, vector quantities can be resolved into its components in the standard (x, y, z) Cartesian Coordinate System.

z x

x
Figure 1.1 : 2-D Figure 1.2 : 3-D

For an example, an acceleration of 2 2 ms2 , 45 from the X-axes in the first quadrant will register an arrow connecting a point 2 2 units away from the origin with vertical and horizontal components of 2 units each as illustrated in Figure 1.3.

y
2

(2,2)

a = 2 2 units y = 2 units
45

a
2

x = 2 units
Figure 1.4: Vector Diagram

Figure 1. 3 : Acceleration on XY plane

A vector diagram, as shown in Figure 1.4, can be used to determine the resultant of two vectors or in this case break up a vector into its x and y components for analysis and easy manipulation. Apart from drawing vector diagrams, arithmetic methods together with trigonometric treatments and triangle rules can be used to work with vectors. In the above example, if the resultant acceleration of the two vectors x and y, each of magnitude 2 which acts perpendicularly against one another is desired, the Pythagorean Theorem can be applied to find the resultant acceleration. The Pythagorean Theorem states: In any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs(the two sides that meet at a right angle).[2] or, it may be expressed in the Pythagorean Equation:

a +b =c

where c represents the length of the hypotenuse while a and b represents the that of the two legs.[3] On the other hand, if the magnitude of the acceleration and its constituent direction are given, the vertical and horizontal components can be found using the trigonometric equations:

y=asin ( x) x=acos( x)
Reference:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_unit 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem 3. Judith D. Sally, Paul Sally (2007)."Chapter 3: Pythagorean triples".Roots to research: a vertical development of mathematical problems. American Mathematical Society Bookstore. p.63.ISBN0-8218-4403-2.

Hypothesis:
The greater the degree of the angle of inclination, the greater the acceleration of the golf ball along the plane, in the y direction, and in the x direction.

Diagram:

Golf ball Wooden plane Wooden block

C-clamps

Diagram 1: Arrangement of apparatus

Materials:
The materials used were a ring stand, 2 C-clamps, a golf ball, a retort stand with clamp, a plywood board, a wood block, a meter rule, and a stopwatch.

Method:
An inclined plane was set up as shown in the diagram, ensuring that the ramp was secure and will not fall or slide away. Alternatively, for gentler slope, the board was rested on the wooden block. The dimensions of the ramp, length, height and base length were measured. The golf ball was rolled down the ramp, and the time taken to reach the bottom of the ramp was determined using a stopwatch. The experiment was repeated using various angles 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60. Each experiment with varying angles was repeated three times and the average time taken was calculated. The acceleration of the golf ball down the ramp, and in the horizontal and in the vertical direction were determined. The data was recorded in appropriate data tables. Graphs of acceleration against angle of inclination were plotted and analysed.

Data :

Angle of Inclination, Length of Ramp, Length of Base, Height of Ramp, lR (m) lB (m) lH (m) ( ) 10 20 30 40 50 60 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.71 0.65 0.57 0.48 0.38 0.13 0.26 0.38 0.48 0.57 0.65

Time Taken (s) t1 t2 t3 <T> 0.93 0.62 0.50 0.46 0.41 0.38 0.94 0.62 0.50 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.94 0.59 0.50 0.44 0.40 0.38

Acceleration ( ms2 ) aP aX aY 1.67 4.08 5.20 5.89 6.00 5.26 0.29 1.40 3.04 4.74 6.78 9.00

0.94 1.70 0.61 4.03 0.50 6.00 0.45 7.41 0.41 8.92 0.38 10.39

Table 1: Data Involving Measurements and Calculation

Graph of acceleration along the plane vs

acceleration along the plane (m/s)

16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

( )

90

Graph 1.1: acceleration along the inclined plane against the angle of inclination

Graph of horizontal acceleration vs

horizontal acceleration (m/s)

16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

( )

90

Graph 1.2: acceleration along the horizontal direction against the angle of inclination

Graph of vertical acceleration vs

20.00
vertical acceleration(m/s)

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
( )

90

Graph 1.3: acceleration along the vertical direction against the angle of inclination

Analysis:
From Table 1, it is clear that the smallest angle of inclination results in the lowest acceleration down the plane. In contrast, the greatest angle, 60, results in the highest magnitude of acceleration in the direction down the plane. Hence, we can infer that the acceleration down the plane is dependant on the angle of inclination. Also, the gradient of Graph 1.1 decreases marginally to the right of the graph. This subtle change in trend of the graph should be caused by the increasing angle of inclination . Graph 1.2 is a peculiar case, for a clear decrease in magnitude of acceleration is seen towards the end of the graph. The first thought of the careless observer will surely be 'bad data' and the urge to discard this corrupted inconsistency will be great. But that was not the case. By comparing the data with the expected theoretical value, we notice that it follows the trend of the theoretical value. It appears that the behaviour of this graph is also dependant on . Well, no surprises there. Moving to Graph 1.3, it is observed that the graph of the vertical acceleration against angle of inclination has a sigmoid shaped curve. In the first half of the graph, there is a gradual increase in the rate at which acceleration becomes greater. However, after approximately 45, the slope of the graph starts to decrease. Careful observation of the data in Table 1 reveals an abashment which no one would want to see in the collected data. Further investigation is required to identify the nature of this error, be it a systematic, or is it just another random happening. Either way, the occurrence of the absurd value of 10.37 ms-2 for an acceleration due to gravity on a planet which gravitational acceleration is no more than 9.81ms-2 must be addressed. In order to make further inference and deduction, a comparison between the actual theoretical values and the data yielded from the experiment is needed. What follow in the next page are graphs of theoretical equations and with the associated experimental values plotted together for easy comparison.

The experimental data appears to be positively biased. All the data obtain from the lab seems to be greater than the theoretical value except for the first point. Also, the absolute difference between experimental data and theoretical value increases to the right.

Graph 2.1: acceleration down the plane against

Similar to the graph above, the experimental data follows the general trend of the theoretical graph although there is a biased deviation in value. What caused this apparent systematic error? That is the question.

Graph 2.3: horizontal acceleration against

The experimental data obeys the general trend of sigmoid shaped graph of the theoretical equation. However, there is an increasing difference in absolute value between the two plots. It seems reasonable to infer that this upward trend is caused or partially caused by the increasing angle of inclination.

Graph 2.2: vertical acceleration against

*Note that in the above theoretical graphs, frictional force is not taken into account.

Discussion:
Before anything can be said about the experiment, it is necessary to understand the kinematics and mechanics involved. Due to the gravitational pull of the planet, our object is set to accelerate downwards perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. This acceleration is independent of the mass and its magnitude is approximately 9.8 ms-1. The following diagrams(which aim to break down this vector into its components which are more useful for our cause) illustrate the mechanics involved:

mg
mg sin() mg cos()

Diagram 2.1 illustrates the weight of the golf ball acting downwards in the vertical direction. However, due to the inclined plane, it is clearer to break up this force into two distinct components which are perpendicular to the plane and parallel to the plane.

Diagram 2.1

FN

mg sin()

mg cos()

After the weight is broken down into its two components, we can remove it from the free body diagram, as shown in Diagram 2.2. The perpendicular component of the weight results in a normal reaction between the golf ball and the impenetrable inclined plane. A normal force which is equal in magnitude but in a different direction is formed. These two forces cancels out each other, as illustrated in Diagram 2.3.

Diagram 2.2

x y

mg sin()

Diagram 2.3

In Diagram 2.3, all that is left is one of the components of the weight of the ball which is parallel to the plane. This component is the sole force responsible for the acceleration of the ball. As illustrated, it is further broken up to its x and y components to determine the vertical and horizontal acceleration.

With this, we arrived at a simple model to build our discussion on. The acceleration down the plane is governed completely by the equation:

a P= gsin ()
and from here, we get the equations for the x and y components, which are:

a X = gsin ()cos()
and,

a Y = g sin ()sin ()
These equations for acceleration were used in generating the theoretical graphs in Analysis in which the theoretical values and experimental data were compared. The values of the accelerations calculated in Table 1 were computed using a derived form of the basic kinematics equations which is:

a=

2s t2

The experimental data was quite consistent with the theoretical values with a minor deviation that appears to be positively biased. The systematic error shown must had occur during the taking of measurements and may be due to the method in which the time taken by the golf ball to travel down the inclined plane was recorded. During the experiment, the first person releases the golf ball on the count of three while the partner starts the stopwatch upon hearing the first person saying three. This method was agreed upon at the start of the experiment because that arrangement seems more convenient then. However, this might be the cause of the systematic error which appeared in the data. The proposed explanation is that the person with the stopwatch did not start the stop watch at the same instant the first person let go of the golf ball. This delay is due to the human reaction time. Therefore, the recorded time will be shorter than the actual value thus yielding a higher acceleration. This condition worsens at higher angles of inclination because while the human reaction time remains relatively constant, the actual time taken becomes shorter, the percentage deviation increases.

Conclusion:
The acceleration of the golf ball increases as the angle of inclination of the wooden plane increases. The vertical acceleration also increases when the angle of inclination increases. However, the horizontal acceleration of the golf ball increases until about 45 and then decreases. The hypothesis is accepted.