Kyle Lambert

IB Physics 1, P.4

South Eugene High School

Tubman

Circular Motion Lab

Design:

We were instructed to omit this because procedure was given.

Data collection:

We had 1 group member to perform lab, 1 to count revolutions and tell timer to start and stop timing, 1
timer, and 1 recorder recording data.

Raw Data:

Force (Number of Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Average Number of

Washers) (s)* (s)* (s)* Time Revolutions**
6 13.75 14.81 14.63 14.40 17
8 11.69 12.69 12.30 12.23 17
10 11.78 11.57 11.21 11.52 17
12 10.17 9.87 10.74 10.26 17
14 9.57 8.87 9.26 9.23 17
16 8.75 9.30 9.48 9.18 17
18 9.08 8.23 8.09 8.47 17
20 8.17 8.11 7.98 8.09 17
22 7.63 7.51 7.66 7.60 17
24 7.45 6.81 6.90 7.05 17
*Trial 1, 2, and 3 respectively, Time (s).

**Average time, to the hundredth place, Time (s) ± .60 s (when processed all the way will be to tenth
place).

*** Same every time, Number of Revolutions ± 1 Revolutions.

Data Processing:

To begin processing my data I will find the Average Time (shown above but part of processing). Then I
will take this value and divide it by my Number of Revolutions to find the period (T (s)), I will also make
appropriate error calculation (which is taking the percent error for each and adding it together, then
applying this percent error to the resultant value). I will then use this to find the frequency by dividing 1
by the period (1/T). I will apply the same (standard correct) method of finding percent error for
frequency. (Both of these tables will be shown below). Then the later part will be graphed, ‘linearized’,
and then graphed again for best fit and maximum and minimum slopes. Significant figures will also be
correctly assessed as they are intentionally not in the collecting raw data section, but some figures are
beyond human capability (time recording and immediate communication).

Presenting Processed Data:

Force (Number of Washers)^ Period (T)* Frequency (s)

6 .85 1.18 ± .05
8 .72 1.39 ± .07
10 .68 1.47 ± .08
12 .60 1.67 ± .10
14 .54 1.85 ± .12
16 .54 1.85 ± .12
18 .50 2.00 ± .14
20 .48 2.08 ± .15
22 .47 2.13 ± .16
24 .41 2.44 ± .21
*Period (T) (which is still seconds), T ± .0353s (or .6/17).

** 1/T (which is Hz), uncertainties are given since they are not the same for each trial since the data has
been processed and should have the same percent error as the previous column.

^The linearized data uses Force ² (Number of washers²), which is obviously this column of data squared
(so 36, 64, 100, 144, 196, 256, 324, 400, 484,576 are the values for the linearized data).

So, here is the graphed data.

As you can probably almost see on the graph on the previous page, there is a square root correlation,
which is shown in the linearized data below. The unit for the Force is Number of Washers ⁵, which is to
the .5 or ½ power, which is equivalent as taking the square root.

Here is the linearized data.

The best fit line is Y = .4635X + .04708

The maximum slope line is Y = .6205X - .3900

The minimum slope line is Y = .4082X + .2300

This means that as the square root of the force increases, the frequency of the rotations increases at a
rate of .4635 (for this lab). This means that the more force added, you must spin the object faster (or
more frequently passing through a full cycle). This is justified by the fact that the data is linear in this
case, and if you work out the equation for ΣFin=main, and because ain=V²/r, and when you plug that into
the previous equation you get that as ΣFin increases, velocity increases at a rate proportional to the
square root of ΣFin.

Evaluating Weaknesses:

Some of the major flaws of this lab were the lack of being able to illuminate friction, as a string running
over the edge of a straw creates a significant amount of friction, which potentially changes the amount
of force being exerted inward on the object that is being swung. Another limitation is the lack of precise
timing equipment, as a person taking times from a person counting the number of rotations only
somewhat accurately (could have more or less than a full rotation at the beginning or the end of the
timing) is relatively inaccurate. We also had washers that were pre-weighed and possibly not the same
weight/mass, which would throw off the results as given what we plotted against a straight number of
washers.
Improving the Investigations:

The first possible improvement would be to add a ball bearing or a mechanism to reduce drag caused
between the straw and the string (which is small but I think is significant), this could take any number of
forms but specifically would be a mechanism that spins on top of the straw that has ball bearings that
are attached to the straw to effectively eliminate drag. The next improvement would be to add a
precision timing mechanism, which would record a time value every time the object being swung passed
a certain point, or better yet, whenever the string reached a certain angle. That could be done by taking
video and using the logger pro video feature. Another improvement would be to use more rotations and
to take more trials, which would reduce the error of the averages and processed data, and hopefully
cause more accurate values to be yielded by those performing this experiment.