1

Acceleration of a Cart by Newtons Second Law

Author: Samir Mohandes Lab Partners: Adrian Sobarzo Instructor: Amarjeet Bhullar PHYS 141 Lab Section 001-H Date work performed: October 5, 2010 Date work submitted: October 11, 2010

Abstract This experiment examines the relationships between mass, acceleration, and force, as stated by Newtons second law of motion, F = ma. By constructing an apparatus by which a cart is pulled along a track by a falling weight, we were able to verify a direct linear relationship between force and acceleration and an inverse power relationship between acceleration and mass with constant force. By analyzing the slopes of the resultant graphs or their linearized counterparts, we found that for each 1N increase in force, 2 acceleration increased by 0.0021 m/s , whereas for each 1g increase in weight, acceleration decreased 2 0.0856 m/s .

2 Introduction The objective of this lab is to determine and verify the relationship stated by Newtons second law: F = ma This law states a directly proportional relationship between the product of mass and acceleration with the force on an object. By experimenting with various components of the relationship such as holding a constant mass and observing changes in acceleration as a result of altered applied force, or holding a constant force while changing the mass and observing the resultant acceleration we can gain a greater understanding of the way in which the three variables presented by Newtons second law function and interact. Procedure The experimental apparatus was arranged as follows: A rolling cart was set on a track, and then attached to a pulley. On the opposite end of the pulley was a weight stack. Two photogates connected to a Pasco Xplorer GLX unit were set up along the track to measure the time it took for the cart to be pulled along the track by the falling mass. Using this setup, the following experiments were performed: First, the total mass of the system was held constant (the total mass of the system was considered to be the mass of the cart added to the mass of the hanging weight stack) while the applied force (the force of gravity applied to the hanging weight) was changed. This was done by using a 600g total mass and redistributing the weight between the cart and the hanging weight; for example, the first set of trials measured the time it took for a 10g weight stack to pull a 590g cart from photogate 1 to photogate 2; the second set of trials measured the time it took for a 25g weight stack to pull a 575g cart from photogate 1 to photogate 2; the third set of trials measured the time it took for a 50g weight stack to pull a 550g cart from photogate 1 to photogate 2, and so on. Then, using the time measurements, the carts acceleration 2 was calculated using the formula x = at . Second, the total applied force was held constant while the weight of the system was changed. Because the applied force comes from the weight of the falling weight stack, this could be achieved by holding the mass of the weight stack constant while changing the mass of the cart. The cart was pulled along the track between the photogates and the Pasco Xplorer GLX unit was used to measure the time. 2 Once more, acceleration was calculated using the formula x = at . The results are summarized below.

3 Data Acceleration vs. Applied Force at Constant Mass m2g 98.1 98.1 98.1 245.25 245.25 245.25 490.5 490.5 490.5 735.75 735.75 735.75 981 981 981 t 1.853498 1.840384 1.836356 1.097249 1.114944 1.129119 0.748748 0.764988 0.843074 0.620982 0.631436 0.60878 0.552056 0.553594 0.541706 a 0.174649 0.177147 0.177925 0.498357 0.482664 0.470622 1.070237 1.025279 0.84415 1.555941 1.504848 1.618939 1.968725 1.957801 2.044673 Acceleration vs. Mass at Constant Force m1+m2 600 600 600 700 700 700 800 800 800 900 900 900 1000 1000 1000 t 0.539976 0.495004 0.50208 0.549562 0.538912 0.534258 0.577306 0.589574 0.595592 0.606686 0.607418 0.60797 0.716048 0.71322 0.727632 a 2.057796 2.44869 2.380156 1.986634 2.06593 2.10208 1.800276 1.726134 1.691428 1.630134 1.626207 1.623256 1.170219 1.179517 1.133255 Acceleration vs. Mass at Constant Force (m1+m2) 1/600 1/600 1/600 1/700 1/700 1/700 1/800 1/800 1/800 1/900 1/900 1/900 1/1000 1/1000 1/1000
-1 -1

a 2.057796 2.44869 2.380156 1.986634 2.06593 2.10208 1.800276 1.726134 1.691428 1.630134 1.626207 1.623256 1.170219 1.179517 1.133255

Graphs

Acceleration (m/s/s) vs. Applied Force at Constant Mass (N)

2.5

2 Acceleration (m/s/s)

y = 0.0021x - 0.0251 R = 0.9924

1.5

0.5

0 0 200 400 600 m2g (N) 800 1000 1200

Acceleration (m/s/s) vs. Mass at Constant Force (g)

3

2.5

Acceleration (m/s/s)

1.5

y = 6105.9x-1.225 R = 0.8808

0.5

0 0 200 400 600 m1+m2 (g) 800 1000 1200

Acceleration (m/s/s) vs. Mass-1 at Constant Force (1/g)

3

2.5

Acceleration (m/s/s)

1.5 y = -0.0856x + 2.4594 R = 0.8745

0.5

0 0 2 4 6 8 (m1+m2)-1 (1/g) 10 12 14 16

5 Discussion The graph Acceleration (m/s/s) vs. Applied Force at Constant Mass (N) shows a linear, directly proportional relationship between acceleration and applied force. This is consistent with the expected result; since by observing that Newtons second law states a relationship F = ma, we can predict that the relationship will be linear. The calculated trend line gives an equation y = 0.0021x - 0.0251. The slope is shown as 0.0021; this can be interpreted as stating that for each unit increase in applied force, the 2 acceleration will increase by 0.0021 m/s . The graph Acceleration (m/s/s) vs. Mass at Constant Force (g) shows an inverse power relationship -1 between acceleration and mass. The linearized form, Acceleration (m/s/s) vs. Mass at Constant Force 2 (1/g), gives a straight line with equation y = -0.0856x + 2.4594. The slope of -0.0856 m/s g indicates that 2 for every 1g increase in the weight of the cart, acceleration decreases by 0.0856 m/s . This is consistent with Newtons second law, F = ma, since it suggests that an increase in mass requires an increase in force to sustain a constant acceleration, and by adding 1g to the mass of the cart without creating a corresponding increase in the weight of the hanging weight stack, we can predict that the acceleration will decrease. Friction proved to be a significant source of systemic error in the experiment. Because it was constant and systemic, it did not greatly skew the results; however, it did alter the acceleration such that it was lower than what would have been predicted using kinematics formulas. To compensate for the error, the equation Ffriction = Fnormal could have been introduced into the original predictions to increase their accuracy, decreasing the differential between predicted and experimental values of acceleration. However, this would require knowledge of the value of , the coefficient of static friction.