* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download sample lab report
Survey
Document related concepts
Atomic theory wikipedia , lookup
Fictitious force wikipedia , lookup
Specific impulse wikipedia , lookup
Equations of motion wikipedia , lookup
Rigid body dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Work (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Jerk (physics) wikipedia , lookup
Mass in special relativity wikipedia , lookup
Newton's laws of motion wikipedia , lookup
Classical central-force problem wikipedia , lookup
Electromagnetic mass wikipedia , lookup
Modified Newtonian dynamics wikipedia , lookup
Centripetal force wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Title: If we break the 2nd law will the Physics police get us? Purpose: This lab had two purposes. The first was to determine the relationship of the total mass of a system and it’s acceleration when the unbalanced force is held constant. The second was to determine the relationship of the net force and the acceleration of the system when the total mass is kept constant. Apparatus: Track, cart, string, assorted masses, mass hanger, pulley, balance, computer and photogate. computer track cart string pulley photogate adjusting foot lab table hanger and mass Procedure: Preliminary: 1. Set up the apparatus as shown in the diagram above, except do not hook the string to the cart yet. 2. Using the adjusting foot, set the angle of the track such that the cart alone, when given a small tap toward the pulley, keeps moving along the track at a constant speed. (This balances out the friction force.) Then hook the string to the cart. 3. Activate the “smart pulley” program in Logger Pro. Adjust the photogate so the spokes in the pulley cut through the photogate beam. Part 1: Varying total mass with a constant net force. 1. Determine the mass of the cart and record it in the data table. 2. Pick an amount of mass for the hanger and mass and don’t change it. We used 55 grams. 3. Hold the cart at the end of the track farthest from the pulley. Start the program and release the cart. 4. Stop the timer after the hanger gets to the floor. 5. Use the computer to plot velocity versus time. Take the slope of the velocity time graph. Record that acceleration in your data table. 6. Repeat run and record acceleration. If it is close move on, if not, repeat again. 7. Repeat steps 3-6 for five more trials but add 200 to 400 grams to the cart before each trial. Part 2: Varying net force with a constant total mass. 1. Place 5 grams on the hanger. (Hanger + mass = 10 grams) 2. Place all of the other masses in the set (200 grams) on the cart. 3. Repeat the timing and the acceleration data as before. 4. Repeat five more trials but move 10 grams from the top of the cart to the hanger before the next trial, and 50 grams for each of the four after that. For the last trial all of the masses should be on the hanger. Data: Defining variables: mass cart = mass of the cart and everything on top of it mass hanger = mass of the hanger and everything stacked on it total mass = mass of cart, hanger and any masses on them (also known as mass of system) net force = the weight of the hanger and mass on it mass of the cart alone: 500.8 grams mass of the hanger alone: 10.0 grams Part 1: mass cart (g) mass hanger (g) 500.8 995.9 1,195.9 1,509.0 1,692.0 1,992.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 Part 2: mass cart (g) 700.8 690.8 640.8 590.8 540.8 500.8 Evaluation of data Part 1 total mass (kg) 0.5558 1.0509 1.2509 1.5470 1.7470 2.0470 Part 2: total mass (kg) 0.7108 0.7108 0.7108 0.7108 0.7108 0.7108 mass hanger (g) 10.0 20.0 70.0 120.0 170.0 210.0 net force (N) .539 .539 .539 .539 .539 .539 net force (N) .098 .196 .686 1.176 1.666 2.058 acceleration ( m s2 ) acceleration ( .939 .506 .424 .347 .310 .266 acceleration ( m s2 ) m s2 ) .941 .506 .428 .345 .310 .268 m s2 ) acceleration ( 0.121 0.252 0.949 1.600 2.229 2.829 0.121 0.248 0.951 1.600 2.301 2.832 acceleration ( m s2 inverse mass (1/kg) ) .940 .506 .426 .346 .310 .267 acceleration ( 1.799 .95157 .79942 .64641 .57241 .48852 m s2 ) 0.121 0.250 0.950 1.600 2.300 2.830 Average acceleration: accelerati on 1 accelerati on 2 2 .248 sm2 .252 sm2 2 .250 sm2 Inverse mass = 1/mass 1 1/.5558kg = 1.799 kg total mass 1kg mass cart mass hanger 500.8g 55.0g 555.8g g .5558kg 1000 kg 1000g 1kg N N net force mass of hanger in kg 9.80 kg 55.0g 9.80 kg .539N 1000g Above is a plot of acceleration versus mass when the net force was kept constant. The fact that the graph above has the shape of a hyperbola gives an indication that the relationship is some type of inverse. So a test graph was plotted where the inverse of the mass was calculated and then acceleration versus inverse mass was plotted. This produced a linear graph. The slope of the line is 0.514 m s2 1 kg which is 0.514 m s2 kg which is 0.514 1 kgm s2 . This makes the mathematical equation for the relationship of acceleration and mass: a (0.514 kgm s2 1 ) m or a 0.514 kgs2m m . In the whiteboarding session I learned a same as a newton of force, so the equation can be written as a (0.514N) 1 m or a intercept has been dropped because it should be zero as explained in the conclusion. kgm s2 is the 0.514N . The m Then I plotted acceleration versus net force. The graph is a straight line. The slope of the line is 1.38 m s2 N . which is 1.38 Nm s2 )Fnet . This makes the mathematical equation for the relationship of acceleration and force: a (1.384 Nm s2 The unit m s2 N is the same as m s2 kgm s2 due to the definition of the newton which simplified becomes 1 . So I can write kg 1 )Fnet . Once again, the intercept has been dropped because it should be zero as my equation as a (1.38 kg explained in the conclusion. Conclusion: In part 1 of the lab I conclude that when the net force on a system is constant, the acceleration of the system is inversely proportional to the mass of the system. My justification for this is that when I graphed my data it formed a hyperbola, indicating some type of inverse relationship. To get a straight line graph when dealing with these two variables, I needed to plot acceleration versus the inverse of the mass. My general form k for my equation is: a = , or k = ma. The slope of the graph is the value for k. In the post lab discussion we m learned that the units of the slope, kg2m are the same thing as a newton. In my case that would make my slope s 0.514 N, which is within 5% of my calculated net force value of 0.539 N. Because of this, I believe the general equation is a = Fnet , or in words, the acceleration is equal to the net force divided by the total mass. Since my m slope is the net force, if I would have hung more mass on the hanger at the beginning of the lab the relationship of acceleration and mass would have stayed the same but the slope would have gotten larger. I would expect the intercept of my inverse mass graph to be zero, because if the mass were close to infinite the acceleration would be essentially zero. (The inverse of infinite mass would be zero.) In part 2 of the lab I conclude that the acceleration on a system is directly proportional to the net force. My justification for this is that when I graphed these variables I obtained a straight line. The general form of the equation would be a = kF. If I take the units of the slope m Ns2 and substitute in kgm s2 for N, I get 1 kg for the unit. This would indicate the slope of the graph is the inverse of a mass. I happened to keep the total mass constant 1 in this part so I looked at that. My constant mass was 0.7108 kg, and the inverse of that is 1.407 kg . This value is within 1.6% of my slope of 1.384 or a = m Ns2 . Because of this, I believe the general equation is the same as in part 1, Fnet . I would expect the intercept of the graph to be zero, as if there is zero net force, the system should m experience no acceleration. One new term that came up in the lab was net force, the vector sum of all of the forces acting on an object or system. The other was defining the unit “newton” which is the force necessary to accelerate one kilogram of mass at a rate of one meter per second squared. As stated earlier, the slopes of my graphs were not exactly the theoretical values. My net force on the cart was less than the weight force of the hanger. Possible reasons were not having the track at quite the correct angle to balance the friction force. It also takes some force to cause the pulley to accelerate as it spins. It is also possible that air resistance was of some importance in the lab.