Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Theory
If a dependence of T1 is plotted against T2 for a constant angle of lap θ then a straight line should pass
𝑇1
through the origin because 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 is constant. = 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 = 𝑘 or T1 = k.T2
𝑇2
The slope k can be measured and it can yield a value for the coefficient of friction 𝜇.
𝑇1 1
𝑇
= 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 = 𝑘 ln k = 𝜇𝜃 = 𝜇 = 𝜃 ln 𝑘
2
𝑇1
If ln is plotted against θ then the resulting curve should be a straight line that passes through the origin.
𝑇2
𝑇
The slope for this line equals µ: ln 𝑇1 = µ𝜃
2
Apparatus
Procedure
Cantilever calibration
1. Turn angle of lap protractor to 0
2. Hang belt and weight carrier on the cantilever
3. Set the dial test indicator to 0
4. Measure the deflection of the cantilever for masses from 0 – 24kg in steps of 3kg.
5. Plot T2 against deflection for the cantilever
6. Use the plot as a calibration curve to determine T2 on the slack side against deflection
Results
1. Cantilever calibration
m (kg) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24
𝛿 0 15 30.5 45 60 75 90 104 118
T₂ = mg (N) 0 29.43 58.86 88.29 117.72 147.15 176.58 206.01 235.44
Table 1: Cantilever calibration results
Calculation
T2 = m × g
T2 for 3 kg = 3 kg × 9.81 (earth gravitational force)
T2 for 3 kg = 29.43 N
150
T₂ (N)
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
𝛿
Figure 3: Calibration curve to show tension on the slack side against the cantilever deflection
m (kg) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
𝛿 0 5 11 18 23 29 34 40 45 51 58
T₁ = mg (N) 0 19.62 39.24 58.86 78.48 98.1 117.72 137.34 156.96 176.58 196.2
T₂ = k x δ 0 9.94 21.868 35.784 45.724 57.652 67.592 79.52 89.46 101.388 115.304
Table 2: Constant angle of lap results
Calculation
T2 = k × δ
T2 = 1.988 × 5
T2 = 9.94 N
𝑇
Given the equation in the lab sheet 𝑇1 = 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 = 𝑘
2
T1 = 19.62 N
T2 = 9.94 N
K = 1.988
θ = π/2
𝜋
𝜇( )
𝑒 2 = 1.988
𝜋
𝜇 × ( 2 ) = ln(1.988)
2
𝜇= × 0.687
𝜋
𝜇 = 0.437
Graph of T1 against T2
250
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
T₂ = k x δ (N)
1.37
𝜇= T1 = m × g T2 = K × δ
4.19
T1 = 20 kg × 9.81 T2=1.988 x 25
𝜇 = 0.327 T1 = 196.2 N T2=49.7
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Angle of Lap θ (radians)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Angle of Lap θ (radians)
Conclusion
𝐓𝟏
1. Is the tension ratio 𝐓𝟐 constant for a given angle of lap?
The tension ratio for a given angle of lap is constant. This can be seen from the results from table
2. This can be further proved as when experiment 2 was conducted, the value of 𝜇 stayed fairly
𝑇
constant through all masses. 𝑇1 = 𝑒 𝜇𝜃 shows that 𝜇 is a constant. From graph 2 we can see the
2
relationship between T1 and T2 gives us a gradient of 1.719 and the line is fairly linear. From
experiment 3 when the angle is changed, the ratio of T1/T2 begins to decrease as the angle of lap
decreases.
2. What is the value of 𝝁 between the belt and cast iron pulley and by considering the two values
obtained, what is the experimental error?
From the second experiment the value for 𝜇 is 0.437
From the third experiment the value for 𝜇 is 0.327
The 𝜇 value between the belt and the pulley should be the same. However, as you can see from
the above two values this is not the case.
The difference in values is 0.11. This has a percentage error of 25%. This error is quite significant,
but there are a few errors that could have caused this.
Apparatus error could have occurred as the weights used may have not been the weight stated by
the manufacturer. Another error could be hysteresis error which is the error that is a result of the
histories that the piece of apparatus has gone through and apparatus error which is due to the
inaccuracy of the apparatus by default. Random error may have also played a part in the
experimental values not meeting the theoretical value as when the weight was placed in the middle
of the beam, it was placed using the naked eye, which could have been misread.
There are many ways in which this experiment could have been more accurate and minimise the
risk or errors. However, there is not one specific method that could eliminate all errors and give the
perfect reading. Below you will see a brief description on how the errors mentioned earlier could
have been minimised.
Apparatus error could be minimised by either getting more accurate measurement devices, or
having the equipment maintained on a regular basis.
Random error could have been prevented if an electronic device recorded the results.
𝑻
3. Have you verified the relationship 𝑻𝟏 = 𝒆𝝁𝜽?
𝟐
The experiment conducted shows a strong correlation between T1/T2 and 𝒆𝝁𝜽; The value for the
two are very close to each other. From table 3 we can use 4.19 radians as an example, the value
for T1/T2 is 3.95.
The equation above shows that the value from the equation is 3.94. The difference between the
two values is 0.25, which gives a percentage error of 10.2%. This error is not as significant as the
difference of 𝜇, but could still have been avoided as mentioned earlier.