Scribd
Upload
3K views

Newtons Lab Report

The document describes an experiment to verify Newton's Second Law of Motion by measuring the acceleration of an object when different net forces act on it using an air track system, glider, masses, and video camera. Acceleration was measured without added masses and with different masses added to test the effect on acceleration. The experimental results were slightly lower than theoretical calculations, with errors attributed to sources like friction, scales, and calibration. Understanding sources of error can help improve experiments and determine how well they verify theories.

Uploaded by

cue_artist
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views

Newtons Lab Report

The document describes an experiment to verify Newton's Second Law of Motion by measuring the acceleration of an object when different net forces act on it using an air track system, glider, masses, and video camera. Acceleration was measured without added masses and with different masses added to test the effect on acceleration. The experimental results were slightly lower than theoretical calculations, with errors attributed to sources like friction, scales, and calibration. Understanding sources of error can help improve experiments and determine how well they verify theories.

Uploaded by

cue_artist
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Abstract

The main purpose of our experiment was to verify Newton's Second Law of Motion

by measuring the acceleration of an object when different net forces act on it. The

equipments that we used to gather our data were an air track system with pulley, a

glider, different masses, and a VideoCom CCD camera system. The main purpose of

the camera is to collect the amount of distances the glider travels in a specific

amount of time, so that a computer software can convert these data into three

different graphs (position, velocity, and acceleration graphs). The air track had small

openings through which jets of air were ejected to create a nearly frictionless

surface. In our first activity we tested the acceleration of our system without adding

any masses going down the air track and collected the acceleration from both the

velocity and acceleration graph. We then compared these findings to the theoretical

value of acceleration that we got using the formula (a= -gsin theta), where theta is

just the angle that air track makes with the ground. In our next activity we tested the

acceleration of our system by adding different masses that act as external forces

using three different trials. During the first two trials we calculated the acceleration

of the glider going up the air track once with a heavy mass (100g) connected to the

pulley and the other one with a lighter mass (25g) connected. Later on we tested the

acceleration going down the track by adding only (1 g) to the pulley. We then

collected our acceleration from each trial using the three different graphs, and

compared the results to the theoretical value of theta by using the formula

(a=(m1+m2sin theta)/ m1+m2). All of our findings were slightly lower than the

expected value because we have to account for the sources of error such as friction,
scale, and calibration. In conclusion, understanding data and sources of error can

certainly decrease error and determine the truthfulness of an experiments outcome.


Conclusion

The experimental acceleration obtained during both activities turned out to be

slightly lower than the expected acceleration. For example, in trial 1 of our second

activity we obtained an average acceleration of 2.713 m/s^2, whereas the calculated

acceleration was 2.983 m/s^2. The difference between these two findings is 0.27 and

a percent error of 9.95%. That is why we take into account the sources of error that

made these slight variations. Some of the main sources of error were friction, scale

inaccuracy, timing, calibration, effectiveness of air supply, and inconsistency of

measurements. Also, our data prove that trial three of our second activity had the

largest percentage of error which is 43.01 %. This large percentage of error can be

justified to the fact that the glider was fighting both the small force of friction of the

air track and the weight of the mass. To improve our findings and decrease the

uncertainty value (0.0081 obtained in first activity), I suggest using all computerized

equipment, probably perform this experiment in a better testing environment such a

perfectly isolated room, I would also try applying more air supply to minimize friction

even more. In conclusion, according to our findings and very slight variation

between the actual and experimental values, we can certainly say that Newton's

Laws are totally legit and verifiable.

You might also like