Physics 4A

Lab 4: Newtons Second Law

3/1/12

By: Dustin Reeder

Group Members:
Josephine Appeng
Alexis Buz
Dustin Bayer






Purpose of the Experiment:
The purpose of this lab was to better our understanding of the concept of Newtons
second law of motion, F = ma, by moving an object along a frictionless surface connected to a
hanging mass by a string with negligible mass.

Measurements:
Part One:
In order to verify Newtons second law of motion (F=ma), a level and frictionless surface
was established using an air track. Known hanging masses (m) ranging from 20 g to 40 g were
suspended from the air track using a pulley and string, which were assumed to be frictionless and
mass-less. The known mass of the glider and sail (M) glided across the frictionless surface. The
photogate timer was set to pulse mode in order to measure the time it took for the glider to move
a distance of 0.500 m. The system of known hanging masses was then released from rest. The
gravitational force acting on (m) caused the two masses within the system to accelerate in
directions which were perpendicular to each other. The time that (M) took to travel a known
distance was measured and recorded. This process was repeated using known, yet varying, (m)
quantities of mass.
Part Two:
Part two of the experiment conducted using the same system described in part one: air
track, pulley, string, hanging mass, and gliding mass. However, the hanging mass (m)
maintained a constant known mass. As each trial was conducted for this part two, additional
mass was added to the gliding mass (M). The data was recorded and analyzed with the intent of
positively concluding Newtons second law of motion (F=ma).
Part Three:
The theoretical relationship between velocity (v), acceleration (a), and distance (x), is
found in the equation: v = . Part three of the experiment was conducted in order to prove
this relationship. We began this proof by suspending a known hanging mass (m) from an air
track using the pulley. We connected (m) to the known glider mass (M), which was able to freely
glide on the frictionless air track using the mass-less string. The photogate timer was set to gate
mode to measure the time it took for the glider to travel 0.500 m. The system was then released
from an initial velocity of zero from a known point. After (M) had traveled a known distance,
we recorded the time that it took for (M) to pass completely through a second known point. This
recorded data gave the information needed to calculate an experimental velocity for (M).

Raw Data:
The raw data sheet was approved and signed (attached to report).

Data Analysis:



Equations:

v
exp
= l

t
g
Part 1- Varying the Hanging Mass
Mass of glider & sail = M = 0.191 kg
Distance (x) = 0.500 m
g =9.8 m/s
2



Table 1:
m (kg) M (kg) a (m/s
2
) t (s) t
p
(s) % Error
0.0700 0.191 2.63 0.617 0.610 1.13
0.0800 0.191 2.89 0.588 0.597 1.53
0.0900 0.191 3.14 0.566 0.571 0.883

Percent Error:

0.617 0.610
0.617

0.588 0.597
0.588

0.566 0.571
0.566

Part 2 Varying of Glider Mass
M
0
= 0.191 kg
Table 2:
m (kg) M (kg) a (m/s
2
) t (s) t
p
(s) % Error
0.0700 0.241 2.21 0.673 0.678 0.743
0.0700 0.291 1.90 0.725 0.704 2.90
0.0700 0.341 1.67 0.774 0.744 3.87
0.0700 0.391 1.49 0.819 0.832 1.59

Percent Error

0.673 0.678
0.673

0.725 0.704
0.725

0.774 0.744
0.744

0.819 0.832
0.819
x100% = 1.13%
x100% = 1.53%
x100% = 0.883%
x100% = 1.59%
x100% = 0.743%
x100% = 3.87%
x100% = 2.90%

Part 3: Determination of Velocity
Distance (x) =0.500 m
length of the sail (l) = 0.100 m
Table 3:
m (kg) M (kg) a (m/s
2
) v (m/s) V
exp
(m/s) % Error t
g
(s)
0.0700 0.191 2.63 1.62 1.69 4.32 0.059
0.0700 0.241 2.21 1.49 1.54 3.36 0.065
0.0700 0.291 1.90 1.38 1.43 3.62 0.070

Theoretical velocity:
v
exp
= l

t
g

Percent Error:

1.62 1.69
1.62

1.49 1.54
1.49
1.38 1.43
1.38





Conclusion:

Throughout the experiment, there was an obvious fluctuation of values when it came to
calculating the experimental times and velocities of the different trials. This led to a wide range
of values which at times were significantly different from the rest of the measurements taken.
These tiny mistakes are what are known as experimental error. One form of experimental error
is human error which many humans are prone to when it comes to taking careful measurements.
The second form of experimental error is systematic error which deals with the error that arises
from the instrumentation and setup used during the experiment.
x100% = 4.32%
x100% = 3.36%
x100% = 3.62%
One reason of probable human error in our measurements was the fact that different
people measured the 50 cm photogate distance. The differences in balance, eye sight, and
ability to accurately measure differ between individual people. Secondly, the method of
measurement is also an indicator of human error since different people have different levels of
accuracy with certain measuring instruments which in case happened to be the meter stick. For
example, the person who measured the 50 cm might have thought they were accurate with their
measurement when in reality the distance might have been 48 or 52 cm rendering our results to
be less accurate. Another example of human error could have occurred when our team was
calculating the acceleration and theoretical times and velocities. If these values were calculated
wrong, then our percentage error would be much less or much more than we had calculated. The
theoretical values needed to be calculated correctly in order to accurately compare them to the
experimental values and thus get an accurate percentage error.
Systematic error was also present during the experiment. For example, the photogate
timer had a certain percent error and was likely to calculate the time incorrectly during different
trials. This is the reason why time was calculated theoretically and the procedures were repeated
for several trials in order to reduce systematic error with the photogate timer. Additionally, after
closer inspection of the hanging masses, it came to our attention that some of them had
significant dents in the metal. As a result, the 50 g mass we calculated might have actually been
around 48 g instead making our calculations and results less accurate.
In the end, regardless of the experimental errors that occurred our experimental values
were quite accurate consistently having a percentage error less than 5%, thus the achieving the
purpose of the lab and proving that F = ma.