1501L Lab Report Experiment 7: Rotation and Newtons 2nd Law: Uniform

Circular Motion
By: Sydney Brush

Performed: March 19, 2015

Due: March 26, 2015

With Lab Partners: Bobby Shea and Ashontea Jefferson

Class Time: Thursday 2:00 4:50 pm

Introduction
The purpose of this experiment is to use Newtons 2nd Law of Motion to measure the
relationship between centripetal force, mass and velocity.
Theory/Description
The equation that we manipulate to find change in radius and its accepted value is T =
Kr1/2. To manipulate this equation we must take the log of both sides to finally get the new
equation of logT = 1/2logr + logK, and figure out the accepted value will be . We also use the
equation T = CF-1/2 to find the change in force and its accepted value. To manipulate this equation
we took the log of both sides again to get logT = -1/2logF + logC and figure out that the accepted
value will be -1/2. We will also use the equations of percent error and percent uncertainty to
compare the dependence of the period on the radius and the dependence of the period on force.
The percent error equation is | accepted value experimental value | / accepted value (100) and
the percent uncertainty equation is x / x (100).
For this experiment, to test the relationship between centripetal force, mass, and velocity,
we rotated an apparatus with a vertical shaft attached to a horizontal platform containing two
uprights. A brass cylinder was suspended by a string from the side upright and had to be lined up
with the radius marked on the base of the apparatus. We then placed a 50g weight over the side
of the horizontal platform that was suspended by a pulley system attached to the brass cylinder,
side upright and center upright. After adding the 50g of weight, we adjusted the brass cylinder to
make sure it was hanging straight vertically by lining up the string from which it was suspended
and the black line on the side upright. The center upright contained a spring and an indicator that
we had to make sure was centered inside of the spring bracket while we rotated the apparatus.
We removed the 50g weight and brass cylinder before beginning our trials. Once we maintained
a constant speed and kept the indicator within the spring bracket, we recorded the time it took for
us to spin the apparatus ten times and repeated this process two more times to get three trial
times. We then traveled to four other different tables and repeated this procedure over again with
different radiuses. When this was completed, we went back to our original table with our original
radius and repeated this procure five more times, except each time with different weights ranging
from 50g-90g.

Data Tables with R, t and T:

In the data tables shown, R is the radius at each different table, t is the three trial times
taken, and T is the average of the three trial times taken divided by 10 to give us the period.
Cylinder: 207.8 .02g
Table 1: 50g

Radius: 0.16.02m

Table 2: 50g

Radius: 0.13.02m

Time 1

17.15 .41 s

Time 1

15.55 .47 s

Time 2

16.66 .08 s

Time 2

15.37 .65 s

Time 3

16.40 .34 s

Time 3

17.13 1.11 s

Avg. Time

16.47 .41 s

Avg. Time

16.02 1.11 s

T (period)

1.647 .041 s

T (period)

1.602 .111

Table 3: 50 g
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .20.02m
16.26 .47 s
16.42 .31 s
17.52 .79 s
16.73 .79 s
1.673 .079 S

Table 4: 50g
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .11.02m
14.18 1.1 s
13.92 2.06 s
13.85 2.13 s
15.98 2.13 s
1.598 .213 s

Table 5: 50 g
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .18.02m
18.59 .16 s
18.61 .18 s
18.10 .33 s
18.43 .33 s
1.843 .033 s

Comparison of Slope to Accepted Value

Theoretical Value:
Slope: .3547 .1313

% Error = (.50) (.3547) / .50 x 100 = 29.06%

% Uncertainty = .1313 / .3547 x 100 = 37.02%

Data Tables with F, t, and T:

In the tables shown, F is the different forces used to set the indicator at different height
levels on the apparatus, t is the three trial times taken, and T is the average of the three trial times
taken divided by 10 to give us the period.
Cylinder: 207.8 .02g
Table 1: 50g
Force: 490 N
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .16 .02m

Table 1: 70g
Force: 686 N
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .16 .02m

Table 1: 90g
Force: 882 N
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .16 .02m

17.15 .41 s
16.66 .08 s
16.40 .34 s
16.74 .41 s
1.674 .041 s

14.57 .16 s
15.31 .58 s
15.32 .41 s
14.73 .58 s
1.473 .058 s

Table 1: 60g
Force: 588 N
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .16 .02m

Table 1: 80g
Force: 784 N
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3
Avg. Time
T (period)

Radius: .16 .02m

12.88 .85 s
14.65 .92 s
13.66 .07 s
13.73 .92 s
1.373 .092 s

Comparison of Slope to Accepted Value

Theoretical Value: -1/2
Slope: -.5107 0.1864

% Error = (-.50) (.5107) / -.50 x 100 = 2.14%

% Uncertainty = 0.1864 / -.5107 x 100 = 36.5%

15.33 .1 s
15.35 .09 s
15.00 .23 s
15.23 .23 s
1.523 .023 s

13.46 .34 s
12.32 .8 s
13.57 .45 s
13.12 .45 s
1.312 .045 s

Sources of Error
Error can be introduced in this experiment by friction with the air. Also, when working
with the stop watch to record the times, the stop watch may not have been calibrated correctly
and the operator may not have been consistent with starting and stopping it at the correct times.
Another error that could be present is when spinning the apparatus to keep the plastic indictor
inside of the spring bracket, it was not always exactly inside of the spring bracket which could
account for some error in the times taken. Lastly, the wobbling of the apparatus could contribute
to some possible error when measuring different aspects.

Conclusion
After completing the experiment, it can be shown that all of our numbers and calculations
agree when comparing them to their accepted values. When comparing the slope to the accepted
value for the dependence on the radius, our percent uncertainty (37.02%) was larger than our
percent error (26.06%) which means that they agree. When comparing the slope to the accepted
value for the dependence on force, we found that they also agreed because our percent
uncertainty (36.5%) was once again larger than our percent error (2.14%). The slopes tell us that
the relationship between centripetal force, mass and velocity are all dependent on one another
and directly correlate to make centripetal force possible.