Newtons 2nd Law Practical

Aim: To investigate the acceleration of a body as the net force exerted on it is

changed.
Hypothesis: The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the force exerted,
that is, when we double the force acting on the body, we double its rate of
acceleration.
Equipment: Trolley, four masses (25-50g), one mass carrier (50g), string, data-logger
and motion sensor, table, pulley, electronic balance.
Method:
1. A pulley was attached to the edge of a table.
2. A trolley was tied by string to a mass carrier and hung over a pulley, as shown in
our diagram.
3. A motion sensor connected to a data-logger was placed behind the trolley to record
its acceleration.
4. Four mass carriers were placed on top of the trolley.
5. The trolley was pulled back 0.5 metre from the table edge.
6. The trolley was released at the same time the data-logger started recording a
velocity-time graph for its motion.
7. A line of best fit was fitted to the data points on the velocity-time graph. Its
gradient was recorded as the acceleration of the system.
8. The trolley was released two more times and its acceleration measured using the
motion sensor for this particular force applied by the weight of only the mass carrier
hanging down.
9. A mass was transferred from on top the trolley to the mass carrier, increasing the
force applied on the system. This new force was recorded.
10. As before, the trolley was released three times and its acceleration measured by
calculating the gradient of the line-of-best fit of its velocity-time graph from the
motion sensor.
11. One by one, masses were transferred to the mass carrier to provide an increasing
force exerted on the system. Three accelerations were recorded for each force and
averaged.
12. A graph of average acceleration versus force exerted was plotted.
13. A line of best fit was fitted onto the graph. Its gradient provided an estimate for
the total mass of the system. This estimate was compared to the actual system mass
measured on an electronic balance.
Diagram:

Please note that your diagram MUST be:

In pencil
Ruled

Labelled
Of good size (~ 10cm x 10cm approximately)

Results:
Force
(N)
0.49
0.98
1.47
1.96
2.45

Acceleration (m/s2)
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3

Average

0.45
0.84
1.67
2.12
2.6

0.43
0.76
1.66
2.16
2.61

0.38
0.75
1.70
2.20
2.65

0.47
0.69
1.60
2.15
2.57

(Note: The force in the table above was determined by multiplying the total mass
hanging down off the table by 9.8. For example, with only the mass carrier pulling on
the system, the force of its weight is given by 0.05kg x 9.8m/s2 = 0.49N).

Newton's 2nd Law

3
2.5

f(x) = 1.18x - 0.2

Acceleration (m/s2) 1.5

1
0.5
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Force (N)

The data points appear to lie on a straight line so it is appropriate to use a straight
line of best fit to model a direct proportionality relationship.
The gradient of the line is equal to:
a 1
=
F m
So, the total mass of the system (trolley + four 50g masses + one 50g mass carrier +
string) is equal to the reciprocal of the gradient:
m=

F
a

m=

1
1.1755

m=0.85 kg
The mass was given to two significant figures which is the maximum precision with
which we could provide this value given that our acceleration measurements were
also taken with two significant figures.
The electronic balance provided the following masses:

Trolley = 0.73kg
4 mass carriers = 0.195kg
1 mass carrier = 0.051kg
String = 0.012kg

Hence, the total mass of system = 0.73 + 0.195 + 0.051 + 0.012 = 0.998kg.
There is clearly a difference between our measured estimate of the system mass from
experiment and the actual system mass from the electronic balance. Reasons for this
difference will be provided in our discussion section.
Discussion:
Our results show that acceleration is directly proportional to force. The data can
confidently fitted with a straight line of best fit showing a linear relationship. Also, at
1N force the acceleration determined from the line is about 1m/s2. At 2N force the
acceleration is approximately 2.1m/s2. The acceleration of the system has doubled
upon doubling the weight force pulling the system.
The validity of our experiment laid in identifying and managing the controlled
variables which included the total mass of the system and to a much smaller extent,
the surface and distance over which the trolley was pulled, and the value of g.
a=

F
m

Since the hypothesis is testing the effect of force on acceleration, we must keep the
total system mass constant throughout. Otherwise, we would not be isolating the
effect of force on acceleration if the mass of the trolley kept changing since, for
example, a heavier trolley would lead to a lower acceleration for the same force.
The mass is the total mass of the system, the system being the trolley, masses, mass
carrier and string because they all moved as one body by the weight force of the mass
carrier plus any masses attached.
To increase the independent variable, our force pulling on the system, we needed to
add a mass to the mass carrier. It was essential that this mass came from the pile on
top the trolley. This way, the force increases but the total system mass is kept
constant. If we were to add an extra mass from outside, the system mass would have
increased. This ensured that the method was valid and the acceleration data were
affected solely by the force variations.

Not as significant but worth discussion is the role that friction of the table surface
plays in reducing the acceleration of the system. The net force on the system is
smaller because friction acts in the opposite direction to its motion. As a result, all our
measured values are slightly smaller than they should be. Lets say that the friction is
given by F fric , then the acceleration of the system is:
a=

FF fric
m

F F
a= fric
m
m
The estimate of the total mass of the system of 0.85kg was less than the value
measured on the electronic balance of 0.998kg. This can be partly explained by
friction which is greater at lower speeds. Once the trolley wheels start moving, the
friction with the table surface reduces because the individual bumps on the surface
and the wheels have less time to contact and form connections.
This means that the acceleration values at the lower forces are more under-valued
than the values at the higher forces. The higher forces will accelerate the system
more and cause the trolley to reach higher speeds for the duration of its journey.
This would mean that our graph should really have a less steep gradient. A lower
gradient would produce a higher mass value because we are taking the reciprocal of
the gradient to determine mass. This explains why our measured experimental
estimate of 0.85g is 15% less than the actual value as measured via the electronic
balance (See below for how to calculate percentage errors).

Error=

Measured Actual
x 100
Actual

Error=

0.850.998
x 100
0.998

Error=15
We minimised the impact of friction by maintaining a constantly short distance of
0.5m over which it would exert a force on the system. This also improved our validity.
Lastly, we performed this experiment on the ground at all times, giving a constant g
for all measurements to ensure that the weight force of the mass carrier and any
attached masses were consistently pulled down at a constant rate by Earths gravity.
We could improve the validity by using air-tracks (which are used for the momentum
first-hand investigations) because these devices provide a frictionless surface over
which the system can move. There were also difficulties when using the motion sensor
and some practice was needed to coincide the start of recording on the motion sensor
with the instant the trolley was released. As such, whenever unusual velocity-time

graphs appeared on the data-logger, these were discarded and classified as outliers
since they provided unrealistically high or low acceleration values.
We could also have made measurements for more forces so that the graph would
have more data points. This would then allow a more accurate line of best fit. We
could have achieved this by using smaller masses such as the 25g masses or a
combination of 25g and 50g masses.
To ensure reliability, we took three acceleration values that were fairly consistent, that
is, had similar value for each force. As discussed above, we did not accept outliers. We
then used their averages to plot the acceleration versus force graph.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the force exerted
on it. Our hypothesis is supported by our results which show that if force is doubled,
then acceleration is also doubled.