Lab: Forces

Date Performed: April 19th, 2022

Class: PHYS 217
Section: 07209
Group Members:
Justin Pedroza
Hang Nguyen
Jake Truong
Nathan Shroeder
Maria Estrada

Abstract
Our lab report aims to investigate elastic and gravitational forces using two different

PhET Simulations-Masses and Springs & Gravity Force Lab. For elastic forces, Hooke

discovered that the force required to extend or compress a spring by an amount of x is directly

proportional to x. On the other hand, Newton discovered a universal law of gravity. He

discovered that every object or particle attracts another with a force proportional to the masses

and inverse to the squared distance between them. In the first part of the experiment, we

investigate the elastic force using the Stretch simulation from PhET's-Masses and Spring

simulation. We then recorded the force and distance against the mass. We then graphed the force

against the distance and plotted a line where we found a best-fit line. The second experiment

investigates the relationship between gravitational force and the mass of an object using the

PhET simulations Gravity Force Lab. We then recorded the force and mass and plotted a graph

of force against mass, where we again found a best-fit line. The third experiment also

investigates the gravitational force's relation to the distance, where we again used the Gravity

Force Lab in the PhET simulation. Then one final time, we recorded the force and distance and
graphed the acquired force data against distance. We again plotted and found our best-fit line. In

the first experiment, the straight-line graph shows that the force applied is directly proportional

to the elastic or compression distance. In our second experiment as stated above, we acquired

another straight-line graph that showed a positive and direct relationship between force and

mass. However, the third experiment showed an inverse relationship between the force and

distance traveled by the object. We can conclude that this lab verifies both the elastic and

gravitational forces.

Theory
Hooke’s Law
When a spring is stretched there is restoring force that is proportional to the displacement.

𝐹𝑠 = 𝑘𝑥
Hooke’s law is named after the 17th-century British physicist Robert Hooke and was first stated

in 1660 as a Latin anagram, whose solution Hooke published in 1678 as Ut tensio, sic vis, meaning, “As

the extension, so the force.”

The spring constant k is a

property of the spring given by:

The spring constant k is a measure of

elasticity of the spring.
 Diagram of Hooke’s Law: The extension of the
spring is linearly proportional to the force.

In other words, Hooke’s law is an approximation of

the response of elastic (i.e., springlike) bodies. It
states that the extension of a spring is in direct
proportion with the load applied to it. For instance,
the spring is pulled downwards with either no load,
Fp, or twice Fp.

x is the displacement of the spring’s end from its equilibrium position (a distance, in SI

units: meters). F is the restoring force exerted on the spring by the spring on that end (in SI

units: N or kg·m/s2). k is a constant called the rate and often referred to as the spring constant

(in SI units: N/m or kg/s2).

The red line in this graph illustrates how force,

F, varies with position according to Hooke’s law.
The slope of this line corresponds to the spring
constant k. The dotted line shows what the
actual (experimental) plot of force might look
like. The pictures of spring states at the
bottom of the graph correspond to some points
of the plot; the middle one is in the relaxed
state (no force applied).

Gravitational Force
The Law of Universal Gravitation states that objects in the universe attract other objects

with a force in direct alignment with their centers, in a straight line proportional to the product of

their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between them. This
attractive force always points inward, from one point to the other. This Law applies to all objects

with mass regardless of their size. For example, within the context of earth, Newton saw that the

force that causes an object's acceleration (gravity) depends on its mass. Furthermore, confirming

that the force acting to cause the downward acceleration of that object also causes the earth's

upward acceleration (Newton's Third Law), that force must also depend upon the mass of the

earth.

While Newton was able to theorize his Law of Universal Gravitation and verify it

experimentally, he could only calculate the relative gravitational force in comparison to another

force. It wasn’t until Henry Cavendish’s verification of the gravitational constant that the Law of

Universal Gravitation received its final algebraic form:

m1 m2
F=G
d2

Where G is the universal gravitational constant (meaning it has the same value throughout the

universe), m1  and m2 are the masses of the objects in kilograms, and d is the distance between them in

meters

N m3
G=6.67× 10−11
kg2
 Cavendish found the universal gravitation constant, allowing the earth to be "weighed." If

we examine the equation, we can note that the larger the masses, the larger the gravitational

force. The farther apart the masses are, the smaller the force. Because the force is proportional

to 1/r 2, the gravitation force is not half but a quarter of the original value if we double the

distance between two masses.

It is important to note also that the distances

are based on the center of the mass (center of

gravity) and so even though I am standing on

the earth, I am quite a distance from center of

the earth.  (R=6400 km or 3980 mi.)

Measurements & Observations

For lab 6, we use the online PhET simulator to experiment with springs of varying

strengths and observe how the springs behave when supporting weights of different mass. We

then move on to the PhET Gravity Force Lab, comparing the effect that mass, radius, and

distance have on the gravity between two objects.

Part 1: The Elastic Force

In Part 1, using the PhET Springs and Masses simulator, we start with two vertically

hung springs of different strengths (one strong and one weak). In figure 1a, we see the setup;

these springs begin with equal lengths.

 Figure 1a: 2 springs of different strength at rest. The springs start at the same length.
We then hang a series of progressively heavier weights from the springs. For each

progression, we use equal weights on each spring and then measure the increase in length the

weights have on each spring. As expected, the weaker spring’s stretch under load is considerably

greater than the strong spring’s stretch under the same load.

Figure 1b: Equal weight hanging from springs of different strengths.

The recorded changes in length for each spring are shown in the following table, we also

are including the hanging of a green load with an unidentified mass that we are to determine in

part 1 of the lab. Using the recorded data in the Excel program, we can plot the graph for the

force of the hanging weights (Fs) versus the changes in the spring’s length (x). In the spring the
restoring force is proportional to the displacement in length, we then are able to determine the

spring rate constant(k) for each spring based on the rate of change, or the slope of the trend line

spanning the plotted measurement points.

Spring 1 Spring 2
Mass (kg) Fs- Weight (N) x- Recorded change in spring’s length (m)
0.05 0.49 0.115 0.040
0.10 0.98 0.330 0.080
0.25 2.45 0.820 0.205
mgreen load wgreen load 0.650 0.160
Spring constant (N/m) k1 = 3.0065 k2=11.999
Table 1a: Recorded changes in spring from PhET Springs and Masses simulator- part 1
When calculating the Mass of the unknown Green Mass, we first measured the length of

extension of the spring with the weight attached, then multiplied that by our spring rate constant

to find our weight in Newtons. From there, we divided by g (9.8 m/ s 2) to find our Mass. We

hung the weight from both springs and calculated using the spring rate constant we acquired

from our calculations to check our accuracy, as shown in our data analysis below.

While the setup and execution of this part of the lab are simple, leaving little room for

error, there is still room for inaccuracy in our measurements. This inaccuracy becomes evident in

our graphs as we see a very slight deviation of our plotted points from the trendline. Assuming

they indeed are constant spring rates, we should see all our plotted points centered perfectly

along the trend line if we were to employ measuring devices with higher precision.

Given this margin for error, we see the importance of using both springs when finding the

Mass of the unknown weight. When we hang the weight from the weak spring, the resulting

Mass is 199 grams, whereas we calculate a mass of 196 grams when using the stronger spring.

Knowing that the springs and the green weight remain constant throughout the experiment, it is
safe to say the discrepancy lies in our length measurements, the only variable present in this

experiment.

Part 2: The Gravitational Force – Dependence on Mass

For Part 2, we use the PhET Simulators Gravity Force Lab to experiment with the effect

of Mass on gravitational force. We begin with two masses, each equal in Mass at one billion

kilograms. Then, without changing the distance between the center of the masses, we increment

one of the masses upward, one billion kilograms at a time, to ten billion kilograms, and record

the resulting gravitation force.

Figure 2a: Two masses, each weighing one billion kilograms, distance of 5 kilometers on center

Figure 2b: The center distance remains constant, while one of the masses increases in size.

m2 (billion kg) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fg (N) 2.7 5.3 8 10.7 13.3 16 18.7 21.4 24 26.7
Table 2: Recorded Gravitational Force between 2 objects as we increase the mass of m2
 Based on our observations, the result is a linear increase in gravitational force, with the

gravitational force between the one and ten kg masses being ten times greater than the force

between the one and one kg masses.

Part 3: The Gravitational Force – Dependence on Distance

In part 3, we continue with the Gravity Force Lab, but here we focus on the effect

distance has on the gravitational force, while also keeping the size of each mass constant. With

each mass set at two billion kilograms, we start at a distance of two kilometers, then expand the

distance in half kilometer increments up to six and a half kilometers.

Figure 3a: 2 billion kilograms masses set at a distance of 2 km on center

Figure 3b: With mass remaining constant, the distance extends out to 6.5 km on center.
 R (km) 2 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
Fg (N) 66.7 42.7 29.7 21.8 16.7 13.2 10.7 8.8 7.4 6.3
Table 3: Gravitation force and their distances between two objects.
Looking at Figures 3a and 3b, we can visually see the considerable gap distance between

the two masses. From a purely observational standpoint, it stands to reason that the force of

gravity should be weaker as the gap between the masses increases.

In Graph 3a, shown in Data Analysis, we see that the gravitational force diminishes as the

distance between our two masses increases. However, unlike in the experiment with changing

masses which exhibits a linear relationship between the mass and gravitational force, we see that

as distance changes, gravitational force does not change linearly. Instead, the further each body

extends away from each other, we slowly see a decrease in the gravitational force; it becomes

less and less pronounced as the distance increases.

This becomes evident when charting the measurements for Part 3 on our Excel

spreadsheet when selecting a trendline model to illustrate the relationship between our plotted

points. The best-fit trendline option is the Power option, an exponential formula relating our

gravitational force values to the distance between our masses.

Viewing the curve in Graph 3a, we observe two notable points. Toward the left side of the

chart, we see the change in gravitational force become much more pronounced at the shorter

distances. This suggests that, as our masses get close together, a minimal change in the distance

would profoundly affect the gravitational force between them. Alternatively, when looking at the

right side of the chart, where distances are greater, we see the effect on gravitational force

becoming less pronounced. This suggests that when separated by great distances, the effect of

gravity, however small, does not change much.

Data Analysis and Discussion

Spring 1 - Small Strength Spring 2 - Large Strength

3 3
2.5 2.5
f(x) = 3.00651332557188 x f(x) = 11.9990004997501 x
Fs (N)

2 2

Fs (N)
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

x (m) x (m)

Chart 1a: Spring extension under load. Weak spring on the left, Strong spring to the right.
In part one, as stated above, we calculated our spring constant by measuring the different

lengths exerted on the spring by attaching increasing masses incrementally. We then plotted the

data points in a graphing program. This allowed us to acquire our spring constant; however, if

you see figure 1b, notice that the line we used for the measurement is not lined up precisely with

our given ruler in the simulation. It is important to note that we did discover back in Lab 1 that

measurements taken with a ruler are not accurate beyond a millimeter due to the limitations of

the graduated scale. In some cases, measuring down to a half millimeter can be done. However,

ruler measurements have some subjectivity as the final determination comes down to where the

person reading the ruler decides the object being measured lines up on the scale.

Upon measuring the various lengths, the springs were stretched by the weights, we also

took down the values given subjectively by the group based on where they felt the line landed.

The values entered brought our spring constant between 11.999 to 12.25 for the large spring

giving us around a 3⁒ error margin. For the smaller spring, we got between 3.0065 to 3.014,

giving us an error margin of 0.25⁒, giving us some error in our calculations when acquiring the
value of the green mass. We note that the smaller spring, even with the margin of error, did

produce a more accurate calculation regarding the margin for error. Below are the calculations

for the green mass by the spring constant of each spring:

From spring 1: w green load (1 )=F s=k 1∗|∆l|=3.0065∗0.650=1.9542 N

w greenload (1) 1.9542
mgreen load(1)= = ≈ 0.1994 ( kg ) ≈ 199( g)
g 9.8
From spring 2: w green load (2)=F s=k 2∗|∆l|=11.999∗0.160=1.91984 N
w greenload (2) 1.91984
mgreen load(2)= = ≈ 0.1959 ( kg ) ≈ 196(g)
g 9.8
In Part two as stated above when we increased the second mass from 1-billion up to 10-

billion we see a tenfold increase between the two.

Part 2 - Gravitational Force Dependent on

30 Mass
25 f(x) = 2.66935064935065E-09 x
20
Fg (N)

15 Chart 2: Increases in
10
Gravitational Force as mass
5
of one body increases
0
0 2000000000 4000000000 6000000000 8000000000 10000000000
Mass of m2 (kg)

This trend would suggest a proportionality between mass and gravitational force, which

can be written as F g=k∗m2 with k =3 ×109 as the slope of this trend line. Recall from the

equation of gravitational force F g between masses m1 and m2, we have:

G∗m1∗m2 G∗m1
F g= 2
= ∗m2
r r2
 In part two’s set up, we had mass of object 1 (m1), distance between 2 objects (r) and the

gravitational constant (G) which are made constant therefore:

G∗m1
2
=k =3∗10−9
r
From then, we calculate the gravitational constant as follows:

( )
3 2
k∗r 3∗10 ∗( 5∗10 )
2 −9 2
−11 N∗m
G= = =7.5∗10
m1 1∗10
9
kg
2

It is important to note that our gravitational constant may come with a level of error due

to the inability to acquire more accurate values. The systems we used to gather our data only

allowed us to acquire values of three significant figures. Therefore, we can only ensure accuracy

to a certain degree. Below is our calculated percent error of our acquired experimental value of G

to the actual value known value of G:

¿ % Error∨¿ |actual value−experimental

actual value
value
|∗100
|%Error|=
|
( 6.7∗10−11 )−(7.5∗10−11)
( 6.7∗10−11 ) |
∗100 %=11.9 %

In Part Three, we see that by keeping the mass of two objects equivalent but changing the

distance between them, the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the

increasing distance. Also, the further the objects move away, the slower the force of gravity

decreases. We can assume by our graph below and the given best fit line that the only way for

the gravitational force to equal zero between the two objects would be for the distance between

the two objects to increase infinitely.

 Part 3 - Gravitational Force Dependent on Dis-
tance
80
60 f(x) = 270865505.626048 x^-2.00178812783176
Fg (N)
40
20
0
1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500

R (km)

Chart 3a: Change in gravitational force as distance increases.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we can determine from Part One that the spring constant is highly

dependent on the measurement devices used upon calculation and the size of the spring. For

example, we see a higher percent error when using the large spring to calculate our spring

constant to determine the mass of the green weight. So, we must take all these variables into

account for all future experiments concerning the spring constant. As well as find ways to take

more accurate measurements of our data, such as possibly using a laser measurement device to

get more accurate measurements.

In Part Two, it is essential to note that we see a significant percent error of 15%. Most

likely since the Gravity Force Lab can only give us up to 3 significant figures for each mass's

gravitational force on one another. However, the graphs acquired are similar to other graphs we

found online of similar nature. Therefore, this can be used to confirm that our lab was a success.

In Part Three, from the results of our experiments, we see that regardless of the distance

between the two objects, they will continue to attract each other with a force of gravitational

attraction. Thus, proving that gravity is and will always be a universal constant.