Basic Kinematics

Laboratory #2

Date: September 20

Session: PhysLab 17

Made By:

Ilyas Kenbayev
Sanzhar Talgatuly
Dias Tulegenov

Almar Gaziz

Abstract
 The influence of the gravity on a particular object can be analyzed using the Newton’s
second law. In this experiment, consisting of two parts, the aim was to estimate and compare
the acceleration values of an object(cart), that were obtained practically and from theoretic
calculations. In first part gravitational force

Introduction

The Newton’s 2nd law of motion interprets what will happen if one or more forces act
on an object. The Newton’s 2nd law uncovers that whether the resultant force acting on the
object with mass m is non-zero, this object will experience the acceleration a which will be
directly proportional to the resultant force and inversely proportional the object’s mass. The
formulas describing the aforementioned words are: F = m ∗ a and a = F/m. Due to the
discovery of these dependencies it became possible to examine and calculate the object’s
motion through mathematical equations.

Three main objectives of the experiment:

1. To find accelerations with related errors in both parts of the lab experiment.
2. To compare the experimental calculations with the theoretical data.
3. To use data collecting techniques (Chi-squared test).

Experimental Description

The equipment that were provided to perform the experiment: Ultrasonic Motion
Detector (PASCO Motion Sensor), electronic scales, masses, a pulley, smooth track and cart.
First of all, the cart’s mass was weighed and recorded. Furthermore, by levelling the track
and estimating the standard deviation of the cart’s velocity, its error due to friction was
evaluated and recorded. The experiment itself consisted of two parts:
1. The track was inclined in a classical way that the cart accelerated due to gravity.

2. The track was inclined so that the cart accelerated by the mass on the pulley.

The experimental data in both parts were collected by the usage of the motion sensor
and DataStudio software. The work principle of the motion sensor is based on the ultrasonic
waves’ reflection and position, velocity, acceleration data were calculated relying on the
time, that it took to reflect from the cart. In both parts, sin(θ) and its error through height and
length of the incline was calculated. Then, by releasing the cart and mass on the pulley in the
first and second part respectively, so that the cart started moving and after the end of motion,
we collected all the needed for future analysis data: mean acceleration and its error, set of
data points in graphs of velocity vs. time.
Experimental Data

Velocity error due to the friction Δvf = 0.027 m/s;

Part 1. Motion of the car on the inclined plane downward

height h, (m) Δh, (m) Length L, (m) ΔD, (m) sin(θ)

0,234 0,005 1,025 0,005 0,228

Table 1.A Dimensions of an inclined plane with errors (height, length and sin(θ))

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time t, (s) 0,051 0,151 0,251 0,351 0,452 0,552 0,652
Velocity v, (m/s) 0,140 0,366 0,591 0,810 1,025 1,272 1,470

Table 1.B Velocity vs. Time

Δv
a mean= (1)
Δt
amean = (1.9±0.2) m/s2;

Part 2. Motion of the car on the inclined plane upward

The mass of the weight m= (70.00±0.05) g

The mass of the car M= (255.90 ±0.05) g

height h, Length L,
(m) Δh, (m) (m) ΔD, (m) sin(θ)
0,220 0,005 0,970 0,005 0,227

Table 2.A Dimensions of an inclined plane with errors (height, length and sin(θ))

Time t, Velocity v, Time t, Velocity v,

# (s) (m/s) # (s) (m/s)
1 0,051 0,084 10 0,951 0,450
2 0,151 0,120 11 1,051 0,520
3 0,251 0,160 12 1,151 0,548
4 0,351 0,199 13 1,252 0,575
5 0,451 0,239 14 1,352 0,618
6 0,551 0,282 15 1,452 0,656
7 0,651 0,325 16 1,552 0,699
8 0,751 0,400 17 1,652 0,718
9 0,851 0,412 18 1,753 0,781
 Table 2.B Velocity vs. Time

amean = (0.4± 0.1) m/s2;

Analysis
Theory

Part 1.
Figure 1.1: The motion scheme of the cart

Figure 1.2: Free Body Diagram of the cart

 Derivation of the acceleration of the cart
It is important to mention the fact that Figure 1.1 represented the motion of the cart
during the experiment. We have a cart on an inclined plane which moves downwards due to
gravitational force. Figure 1.2 clearly demonstrates Free Body diagram of forces acting on a
cart. From this diagram, it is clear that it is possible to divide forces acting on a cart on x and
y components. And even if the figure 1.1 does not represent some features it does not mean
that they do not exist. We talk about the length of the inclined plane or height of the plane
from the ground. From the simple fact that we have a moving object which experiences some
forces acting on it we could assume that we have the resulting force and with some
acceleration due to Newton’s Second Law. F=m*a, however we know that the resulting Force
acting on cart is Gravitational Force but due to the fact that we have an inclined plane only its
X component matters
mg x =ma (2)

Where a=g sin θ (3)

h hg
sin θ= a= where
D D
m – mass of the cart
mgx–gravitational force of x-component
θ– angle between plane and ground
h – is the height of the plane
L – is the length of the inclined plane
N – Normal Force (ground reaction Force)
m gy– gravitational force of y-component
a – acceleration of the cart due to Gravity Force acting on cart

Part 2. Theory

Figure 2: The scheme of motion of the cart with attached load

Inference of the acceleration of the truck and the heap

 Figure 2 demonstrates the motion of the truck with attached heap and it is important to
mention that the graph demonstrates the vectors of Forces acting on this particular truck. We
know that Gravity Force and Normal Force actually cancel each other simply because the
truck does not follow down and there is only Tension and x-component of the Gravity Force
left. In the end, we acquire following equation:
T −Mg sin θ=Ma (4)

Because of the fact that heap has only two forces acting on it (Tension and Gravity
Force) and the fact that truck moves downward. It is safe to say that Gravity Force is bigger
than we have following equation:
mg−T =ma (5)

Combining (adding) these two equations, we may derive the acceleration of the objects:
mg−Mg sin θ=Ma +ma
a ( M +m )=g ( m−M sin θ )
g ( m− M sin θ )
a= (6)
M +m
a – acceleration of the objects
m – mass of the heap
T – tension force

Error analysis

Part 1.
Calculations for error of sin(θ):
−1
sin ( θ ) =h∗D
therefore

√ √
2 2 2 2
δf δf 1 −h
∆ sin (θ)= ( ∆ h) +( ΔD) = ( ∆ h) +( 2 ∆ D) (6)
δh δD D D

Calculation of the error of theoretical acceleration

√
2 2
δf δf
∆ a th= ( ∆ g) +( Δsin θ) =√ (sin θ ∆ g)2+(gΔsin θ)2 (7)
δg δsin θ

Part 2.
Calculations for error of sin(θ):

√( ) ( ) √( )( )
2 2 2 2
δf δf 1 −h
∆ sin (θ)= ∆h + ΔD = ∆h + 2 ∆ D
δh δD D D

Calculation of the error of theoretical acceleration

√( ) ( )( )
2 2 2 2
δf δf δf δf
∆ a th= ∆ g +( Δsin θ) + ∆m + ∆M (8)
δg δsin θ δm δM

√ ( )( )( )
2 2 2
−Mg g−1 −g sinθ +1
∆ a th= 0+ Δsin θ + ∆m + ∆M (9)
M +m ( m+ M ) 2
( m+ M )2

Calculations

Part 1.
Calculations for theoretical value of a:
a th=g sin θ=9.81m/s 2∗0.228=2.237 m/s 2
Hence, the formula for theoretical velocity will be:
v th=a th t
as there is no initial velocity.

# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time t, (s) 0,051 0,151 0,251 0,351 0,452 0,552 0,652

Theoretical 0,114
Velocity vth, (m/s) 0,338 0,561 0,785 1,011 1,235 1,459
Velocity v, (m/s) 0,14 0,366 0,591 0,81 1,025 1,272 1,47
Chi2 0,971 1,113 1,183 0,792 0,296 1,914 0,16
Error on slope 7,08 8,11 8,63 5,77 2,16 1,4 1,16

Table 3.ATheoretical velocity vs. Time

Calculations for Chi-square:

n=7
χ2 1 ( data−t h eory ) 2 1 (v−v th)2
= ∑
dof ( n points−n variables ) data error 2
= ∑
7−2 i=1 Δ v f 2
=1.286(10)

Calculations for Slope Error:

 √ √
n=7
1 1
∆ slope= ∑
n points data
( data−t h eory ) 2= ∑ (v −v th)2=0.021(11)
7 i=1

Part 2.

Calculations for error of sin(θ):

√( )( ) √( )( )
2 2 2 2
δf δf 1 −h
∆ sin ( θ )= ∆h + ΔD = ∆ h + 2 ∆ D =0.005(11)
δh δD D D

Calculations for theoretical value of a and its error:

g ( m−M sin θ )
a th= =0.359 m/s 2
M+m

√ ( )( )( )
2 2 2
−Mg g−1 −g sinθ +1
∆ a th= 0+ Δsin θ + ∆m + ∆ M =0.003 m/s 2
M +m ( m+ M )2 ( m+ M )2

Theoretical velocity is calculated as in Part 1.

Theoretical
Time t, Velocity v, Error on
# velocity vth, Chi2
(s) (m/s) slope
(m/s)
1 0,051 0,084 0,030 4,005 0,003
2 0,151 0,120 0,043 8,170 0,006
3 0,251 0,160 0,057 14,411 0,011
4 0,351 0,199 0,072 22,410 0,016
5 0,451 0,239 0,086 32,168 0,023
6 0,551 0,282 0,101 44,758 0,033
7 0,651 0,325 0,117 59,459 0,043
8 0,751 0,400 0,140 85,727 0,068
9 0,851 0,412 0,148 95,811 0,070
10 0,951 0,450 0,162 114,184 0,083
11 1,051 0,520 0,187 152,638 0,111
12 1,151 0,548 0,197 169,135 0,123
13 1,252 0,575 0,206 186,477 0,136
14 1,352 0,618 0,222 215,331 0,157
15 1,452 0,656 0,235 242,399 0,177
16 1,552 0,699 0,251 275,072 0,201
17 1,652 0,718 0,258 290,157 0,212
 18 1,753 0,781 0,280 343,612 0,251

Table 2.3 Calculations of Chi-square value and Slope Error in Excel

Calculations for Chi-square:

n =18
χ2 1 (v−v th)2
=
dof 18−2
∑ Δ v f2
=0.107
i=1

Calculations for Slope Error:

√
n=18
1
∆ slope=
18
∑ (v−v th) 2=0.310
i=1

Discussion

Part 1 2

Theoretical 2.237
acceleration 0.366 ±0.003
±0.049
ath, (m/s^2)
Average 1.900
acceleration 0.400 ±0.100
±0.200
amean, (m/s^2)
Fit 2.250
acceleration 0.411 ±0.281
±0.021
af, (m/s^2)
Table 4. Values of the accelerations obtained from lab, calculations and graph

Below are the graphical representations of the data obtained from calculations
 Velocity vs Time (Part 1)
1.400 f(x) = 2.22087207402171 x + 0.0300300747845419
1.200
1.000
Velocity (m/s)

0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700
Time (s)

Velocity vs. Time (Part 2)

0.900
0.800
f(x) = 0.410539342970209 x + 0.0619750418658687
0.700
0.600
Velocity, m/s

0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000
Time, s

Analyzing the above table, it can be noticed that the second part of the experiment
was performed more successfully than the first, because the values for accelerations are more
similar than those in first. To be precise, in the first part, the mean acceleration 1.900 ±0.200
m/s^2 significantly differs from the theoretical and fit accelerations, that are actually almost
identical, 2.237 ±0.049 m/s^2 and 2.250 ±0.021 m/s^2, respectively. In contrast, the range of
difference in acceleration values in second part is only 0.045 m/s^2. The reason for the error
in first part could be minor mistakes in conducting the experiment and the negligence of the
friction between the track and the cart. However, according to Chi-square the experiment was
comparatively precise, as the values for first part is close to 1 and the second part slightly less
than 1.

Conclusion
To sum up, the obtained data in two parts slightly differs from the theoretical,
especially the data calculated by the motion sensor. For instance, the value of acceleration
calculated by the sensor had difference by approximately 0.03 in both parts. The error could
be caused by the excess or scarcity of the data taken from the graphs. Moreover, random
errors like unexpected changes in the dimensions of the plane during experiment could affect
on the precision of measurement. The graphs were correctly fitted and using X 2 test, the
uncertainties were found. Regarding the results, the acceleration is directly proportional to the
force applied and inversely to mass. The application of Newtonian second law was
successfully established proving the theory.