Actual Method

Trial 1




































Actual Method
Trial 2




































Polygon Method
Trial 1
SCALE : 1cm : 10g



































F
1
= 50g = 5cm = 54
F
2
= 45g = 4.5cm = 143
F
3
= 85g = 8.5cm = 227
F
4
= 6.6cm = 354.5
A.V = 65g = 6.5cm ; 355.5
E.V. = 6.6cm ; 354.5
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
6.5 6.6
6.5
100%
=1.54 %
%Error of Resultant = 1.54%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
355.5354.5
355.5
100%
=0.28 %
%Error of Angle = 0.28%
Polygon Method
Trial 2
SCALE : 1cm : 10g



































F
1
= 45g = 4.5cm = 59
F
2
= 55g = 5.5cm = 113
F
3
= 70g = 7.0cm = 203
F
4
= 9.0cm = 318
A.V = 90g = 9.0cm ; 315.2
E.V. = 9.0cm ; 318
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
9.0 9.0
9.0
100%
=0.00 %
%Error of Resultant = 0.00%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
315.2318
315.2
100%
=0.89 %
%Error of Angle = 0.89%
F
1
y = F
1
SIN
=(50g)(SIN 54)
= 40.451

F
2
y = F
2
SIN
=(45g)(SIN 143)
= 27.082

F
3
y = F
3
SIN
=(85g)(SIN 227)
= -62.165

Component Method
Trial 1





F
1
x = F
1
COS
=(50g)(COS 54)
= 29.389

F
2
x = F
2
COS
=(45g)(COS 143)
= -35.939

F
3
x = F
3
COS
=(85g)(COS 227)
= -57.970

= F
1
x + F
2
x + F
3
x
=29.389 - 35.939 - 57.970
= -64.519

= F
1
y + F
2
y + F
3
y
=40.451 + 27.0822 - 62.165
= 5.367

R =

2

2

= 64.519
2
5.367
2

= 64.742g







F
1
= 50g = 54
F
2
= 45g = 143
F
3
= 85g = 227
F
4
= 65g = 355.5 (ACTUAL)
= tan
-1
|

|
= tan
-1
|
5.367
64.519
|
=4.755

4
= 360-
= 360 - 4.755
= 355. 245
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
6564.742
65
100%
=0.40 %
%Error of Resultant = 0.40%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
355.5355.245
355.5
100%
=0.07 %
%Error of Angle = 0.07%
F
1
y = F
1
SIN
=(45g)(SIN 59)
= 38.573

F
2
y = F
2
SIN
=(55g)(SIN 113)
= 50.628

F
3
y = F
3
SIN
=(70g)(SIN 203)
= -63.417

Component Method
Trial 2





F
1
x = F
1
COS
=(45g)(COS 59)
= 23.177

F
2
x = F
2
COS
=(55g)(COS 113)
= -21.490

F
3
x = F
3
COS
=(70g)(COS 203)
= -64.435

= F
1
x + F
2
x + F
3
x
=23.177 - 21.90 - 64.435
= -62.748

= F
1
y + F
2
y + F
3
y
=38.573 + 50.628 - 63.417
= 61.849

R =

2

2

= 62.748
2
61.849
2

= 88.106 g







F
1
= 45g = 59
F
2
= 55g = 113
F
3
= 70g = 203
F
4
= 90g = 315.2 (ACTUAL)
= tan
-1
|

|
= tan
-1
|
61.849
62.748
|
=44.587

4
= 360-
= 360 - 44.587
= 315.413
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
9088.106
90
100%
=2.10 %
%Error of Resultant = 2.10%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
315.2315.413
315.2
100%
=0.07 %
%Error of Angle = 0.07%
Analysis Questions:
1. What is the significance of the fourth force F4? How is it related to the
vector sum of the first three forces?
The fourth force F4 is the equilibrant force. It is the force that cancels out the
other three forces. The first three forces and the fourth force or the equilibrant
force are both equal in magnitude but their direction is the total opposite. That is
the reason why the equilibrant force cancels the other three forces that makes the
ring center in the table.

2. How do the results of the polygon method compare with the actual values of
F4 and 4? What could be a cause of the difference in values?
The results of the polygon method compared with the actual values of F4 and 4
are slightly different. The actual method showed a result of 65g and 355.5 while
the polygon method showed a result of 66g and 354.5. The cause of the slight
difference in values is that because of the drawing the actual polygon. They are
maybe some small inaccuracy in the measurements of line and the drawing the
angle. But nevertheless, the percent errors which are 1.54% and 0.28%,
respectively, is very small.

3. How do the results of the component method compare with the actual values
of F4 and 4? What could be a cause of the difference in values?
The results of the polygon method compared with the actual values of F4 and 4
are slightly different. The actual method showed a result of 65g and 355.5 while
the component method showed a result of 64.742g and 355.245. The component
method is the absolute correct value that is to be considered. The cause of the
difference in value is that from the actual method, the ring is not perfectly
centered in the force table. But the percent errors of 0.4% and 0.07%,
respectively, are very small that it is not recognizable.







Conclusion

Resolution of forces is the breaking down of forces into its individual
component forces. The other way around, these individual component forces can
be composed together to form the original force. Resolution of forces allows us to
analyze causes of motion separately in vertical, horizontal and other directions.
These components of forces or vectors can be thought of the influence of these
vectors to each other. This means that one component vector with a given direction
is influenced by another component vector with a different direction or vice versa.
This two different component vector can be also represented in a single two-
dimensional vector.

In terms of finding an accurate finding in the resultant force, the more
reliable and more accurate method is the component method. In polygon method,
you must have skills in measuring accurate lines and angles and drawing them to
perfection. This is very hard to attain since our drawing skills cannot be that
perfect. It can come very close but not really exact. But when we use component
method, this perfection can be attained. It involves computation of the given
measurements. Nothing can beat computation when it comes to accuracy. It
provides as many significant figures. For example, in this experiment, we both
used polygon method and component method. When we did the polygon method,
its kind of hard measuring exact 5.5cm, 4.5cm and other measurements and we
know that the one we draw is not exactly 5.5cm, only very close to that. Measuring
and drawing angles is also the same with that. From measuring and actually
drawing the angles is not that easy and also not that very accurate. Compared to
when we used the component method, we used a calculator which can be very
reliable and accurate. I can prove this because the percent errors in the polygon
method trial 1 are 1.54% in resultant and 0.28% in angle while the percent errors in
component method trial 1 are 0.4% and 0.07% respectively. Component method is
more reliable and more accurate among the 2 methods.

While doing the experiment, it cannot be avoided that some errors will be
committed. One error is in the actual experiment. The goal of the experiment is to
find the equilibrant force to center the ring in the force table. We can say that the
ring is like 98% centered, not exact. It is hard to find an exact answer since the
denominations of the mass weights that starts at 5g. This reflected in the
computation of the percent error of the polygon and component method. Another
error is the making of the polygon method. Since we cannot measure and draw
very accurate lines and angles, there will be some small difference in the actual
value. Then after measuring the angle and the side of the equilibrant force, its
result might differ slightly than the actual value, which was proven when we
compare the results of the polygon method with the actual method.

The experiment was somehow hard and it took us quite some time to finish.
This is because our mass weights have 5g as its minimum denomination. As we
come close to center the ring, we can no longer do other than change the angle. If
that doesnt work, then we have no choice but to try another set of given. Because
adding to one part can cause a huge difference. Although it gives some challenge
in doing the experiment, at least add another denomination of mass weights less
than 5g to help us. This could also lead into more accurate results in the
experiment because there would be less error. I also recommend to future users to
make sure that to balance the weight hangars first before doing the experiment.
The ring must be at the center when no mass weights are added to the hangars. Our
huge mistake was that we didnt check if the force table was balanced, as a result,
we have to start from the beginning. Lastly, I also recommend to always look at
birds eye view, not in slanting angle. This is can cause some errors in observing
the results of the experiment.





Applications

As you one can see in a highway, some curved roads are banked. Why
curved roads in highways are usually banked? When vehicles go through turnings,
they travel along a nearly circular arc. There must be some force to produce the
required centripetal acceleration. Centripetal force is provided to the vehicle by
following by friction, banking of roads or both. Anyone riding in a car that is
turning feels the force tending to keep the car and it's contents going in the same
direction. If the car is going fast enough, it will not stay on the road.
By banking the curve, the car's tires are forced onto the surface, increasing the
friction holding the car on the road. How does this happen? The force tending to
keep the car going in the same direction pushes the tires onto a banked surface. If
the road was completely vertical, all the outward force would push the tires onto
the road surface. If the road is horizontal, none of the outward force pushes the
tires on the road surface. The steeper the bank, the more the tires will be forced
onto the surface in a curve. Obviously too steep a bank could result in the car
sliding down the surface.

Friction is the frictional resistance to the relative motion of two solid objects
is usually proportional to the force which presses the surfaces together as well as
the roughness of the surfaces. Since it is the force perpendicular or "normal" to the
surfaces which affects the frictional resistance, this force is typically called the
"normal force" and designated by N. According to Kurtus (Kurtus, 2009), some
applications of friction is you could not walk without the friction between your
shoes and the ground. As you try to step forward, you push your foot backward.
Friction holds your shoe to the ground, allowing you to walk. Consider how
difficult it is to walk on slippery ice, where there is little friction. Another, writing
with a pencil requires friction. You could not hold a pencil in your hand without
friction. It would slip out when you tried to hold it to write. The graphite pencil led
would not make a mark on the paper without friction.

A pencil eraser uses friction to rub off mistakes written in pencil lead.
Rubbing the eraser on the lead wears out the eraser due to friction, while the
particles worn off gather up the pencil lead from the paper. Friction is very
important even if it has its bad sides.


Reference
Kurtus, R. (2009, May 21). Uses of Friction. Retrieved from School for Champions :
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/friction_uses.htm#.U9-
cGfmSzw8
Nave, R. (n.d.). Friction. Retrieved from Hyper Physics: http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict.html
oldschool. (2012). Explain why curved roads are generally banked? Retrieved from
Yahoo! Answers:
https://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120228021203AAM
v9XN