Determining the relationship of mass on

acceleration
Patricio Jose H. Najeal

Newton’s second law of motion states that the force acting upon a certain mass is equal to the product of
the mass and its acceleration. Theoretical data assumes that no other force acts upon the object. Results
show that there is a mismatch between the calculated data and the experimental data due to other forces
affecting the recorded data, such as air resistance and friction, although the relationship between mass
and acceleration is the same for both experimental and theoretical data; both data show that mass and
acceleration are inversely proportional. When the cart’s mass was 1252.9 mg, the recorded median
acceleration was 0.19 m/s2. When the cart’s mass was 1052.9 mg, the recorded median acceleration was
0.21 m/s2. When the cart’s mass was 852.9 mg, the recorded median acceleration was 0.27 m/s 2. When
the cart’s mass was 652.9 mg, the recorded median acceleration was 0.32 m/s 2. When the cart’s mass
was 452.9 mg, the recorded median acceleration was 0.48 m/s2. When the cart’s mass was 252.9 mg, the
recorded median acceleration was 0.83 m/s2.
Introduction
Newton’s second law states that in an inertial frame,
the vector sum of all forces acting upon an object is
equal to the product of the mass and the overall
acceleration that the mass undergoes, assuming that
the mass remains constant.1 These assumptions
assume that no other force acts upon an object. The
purpose of this study is to determine the relationship
of mass on the acceleration given a constant force is
applied to the mass, and to compare the
experimental data to the theoretical data.
Methodology
A cart of mass 252.9 mg with an added 1000 mg
mass was attached to a 25 mg mass via a pulley, after
which the mass was allowed to drop, applying a
constant force on the cart. The cart was allowed to
travel a distance of 54 cm on a metal surface before
it was stopped using magnetic repulsion from the
cart and a barrier. The velocity of the cart was
recorded using an ultrasonic detector sampling at 20
Hz during this time. Sampling for the cart’s
acceleration began 2 seconds before the cart was
subjected to the force of the falling mass. The timing
for the 2 second interval was estimated by the
researcher with the aid of a timer. Recorded samples
of the cart while it was not under the influence of the
force resulted from the falling mass were recorded
but are not reported and are not used in analysis. The
process was repeated for added masses of 800 mg,
600 mg, 400 mg, 200 mg, and 0 mg.
Data Analysis
The net acceleration of the cart, and the force applied
on the cart was determined by Equation (1)
𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎 Equation (1)
Friction in the set-up, and the mass of the string was
ignored. The acceleration due to gravity was
estimated to be 9.8 m/s. The inertial frame was set
to be 70 cm away from the ultrasonic detector.
Results and Discussions
Table 1: Total cart mass and the respective calculated
acceleration
Calculated
Setup Total Cart
Acceleration
Number Mass (mg)
(m/s2)
Setup 1 1252.9 0.20
Setup 2 1052.9 0.24
Setup 3 852.9 0.29
Setup 4 652.9 0.38
Setup 5 452.9 0.55
Setup 6 252.9 0.99
Using the calculated force of 0.25 N, the calculated
acceleration of their respective total cart mass is
given in Table 1.
There are inconsistencies exhibited in the
acceleration versus time graph of the cart (refer to
the appendix). This is because the surface of the
wheels of the cart used in the experiment do not have
uniform friction coefficient, most likely due to the
buildup of dust and grime in the wheels which were
not properly cleaned prior to experimentation,
giving the wheels less surface area and less traction
to the surface due to the lubricant nature of the
grime. Another factor to consider in the
inconsistencies in the acceleration versus time graph
is that the metal surface that the cart rolls on is not
uniformly smooth, and therefore some parts of the
surface were rougher than other parts of the runway.
For this reason, in the analysis of the acceleration of
the cart, the median recorded acceleration is used.
The median value is used in favor of the arithmetic
mean to avoid the influence of the initial
acceleration, and the final acceleration, both of
which are not relevant in the analysis of the
relationship of mass on acceleration, given force is
constant. There is a large spike in acceleration at the
near end of the graph because the magnetic
repulsion is strongest at those points.
Table 2: Calculated acceleration and the median recorded
acceleration
Median
Calculated
Setup Recorded
Acceleration
Number Acceleration
(m/s2)
(m/s2)
Setup 1 0.20 0.19
Setup 2 0.24 0.21
Setup 3 0.29 0.27
Setup 4 0.38 0.32
Setup 5 0.55 0.48
Setup 6 0.99 0.83
The calculated acceleration is different from the
median recorded acceleration reported at Table 2
because the calculated acceleration neglects friction.
Other factors like gravity and electromagnetic
disturbances that affect the ultrasonic detector also
affect the recorded acceleration.
Common to both the theoretical data and the
experimental data is the inverse relationship of mass
and acceleration; the lower the mass, the higher the
acceleration.
Conclusion
The relationship of mass and acceleration is
identified to be inversely proportional. There were
differences observed in the projected or calculated
acceleration of the cart and the median recorded
acceleration. Factors such as the wheels surface, the
surface of the runway, gravity, and electromagnetic
disturbances affected the recorded data. The
researcher suggests calculating the gravity of the
location where the experiment will take place in
order to achieve more accurate projections.
References
1. Giancoli, D. C. (2016). Physics: Principles
with applications. Boston: Pearson.
Acknowledgements
The researcher expresses their sincere appreciation
for the Philippine Science High School - Central
Visayas Campus for supporting this research and for
allowing me to use the facilities for data gathering,
and the adviser of the Experimental Physics elective,
Mr. Benito A. Baje.

Appendix

Scatterplot of Setup 1 Acce vs Setup 1 Time, Setup 2 Acce vs Setup 2 T

0 2 4 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 2 4
Setup 1 Acceleration*Setup 1 Time Setup 2 Acceleration*Setup 2 Time Setup 3 Acceleration*Setup 3 Time
50 50
0 0 0 0
25 25
-2 -2 -2 -2
0 0

-4 -4 -4 -4
-25 -25
-6 -6
-6 -6
-50 -50
-8 -8
-8 -8
0 2 4 0.0 2.5 5.0 0 2 4

0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4
Setup 4 Acceleration*Setup 4 Time Setup 5 Acceleration*Setup 5 Time Setup 6 Acceleration*Setup 6 Time
40 40 5 5
5 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
-5 -5

-40 -40 -10 -10

-5 -5

-15 -15
-10 -10 -80 -80
0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4