1

Constant Acceleration Lab Report

Roy Boustani, assisted by Lee Payment, Julio Meneses, and Amber Ye

2024-10-07
 2

Objective:

To measure the uniform acceleration of an object using Logger Pro’s Video Analysis.

Theory:

Motion is seen everywhere, but how is it measured and what makes an object move faster or
slower? That is where the law of kinematics comes handy with it being the definition of motion.
Kinematics is used to find velocity, acceleration, time and the displacement of an object. In this
lab, the laws of kinematics could be helpful for finding all of the above. The three formulas that
could be of use are:
𝑣𝑓 − 𝑣𝑖
𝑎=
𝑡
𝑑
𝑣𝑎𝑣𝑔 =
𝑡
1
𝑑 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2
Hypothesis:

If the object undergoes uniform acceleration, then the velocity vs. time graph will be linear, and
the distance vs. time graph will be quadratic because the acceleration remains constant. This is
because constant acceleration leads to a steady increase in velocity, which results in quadratic
growth in displacement.
Materials:

• Cart
• Pully system
• 200g mass
• 1.5 m String
Procedure:

1. The cart was structured according to the diagram in the Lab handout

2. 1.5 meters of string was taken, and one end was attached to the end of the dynamic’s cart and
the other to a 200 gram mass.

3. Padding was added to the end and the line held tightly to ensure no slack.

4. A one meter stick was placed in the background for a scale and the cart was released with a
person ready to catch it, whilst the video was recorded from left to right.
Diagrams:
 3

Diagram 1. Experimental Setup for Measuring Uniform Acceleration

Graphing:

Graph 1. Distance vs time

Equation:

𝑦 = 0.3789𝑥 2 − 1.524𝑥 + 1.883

Graph 2. Velocity vs time.

 4

Equation:

𝑦 = 0.7445𝑥 − 1.494

Analysis:

Calculations:

Points used (2.133, 0.3646), (3.467,1.148)

𝑑
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 𝑜𝑟 (𝑚) 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ
𝑡
𝑦1 − 𝑦2
𝑚=
𝑥1 − 𝑥2
0.3646𝑚 − 1.148𝑚
𝑚=
2.133𝑠 − 3.467𝑠
𝑚 = 0.5873 𝑚/𝑠

Therefore, the average speed is 0.5873 𝑚/𝑠.

Discussion:
 5

a) What is the Vinst at any 2 points of the d vs t graph?

Point 1: (3.433, 1.110)

Slope: 1.021 𝑚/𝑠

Point 2: (2.733, 0.5413)

Slope: 0.612 𝑚/𝑠

b) Using the Vinst from #2 and the time values, calculate the Acceleration.
𝛥𝑣
𝑎=
𝛥𝑡
1.021 − 0.612
𝑎=
3.433 − 2.733
𝑎 = 0.5840 𝑚/𝑠 2

c) what is the value according to the v vs t graph?

𝑎 = 0.7445 𝑚/𝑠 2

6) Using the integration tool, what is the displacement of your v vs t graph? How does
this compare to your d vs t graphs answer?

𝑑 = 0.8146 𝑚

It is surprisingly a different result. The result is approximately 0.08 m smaller when

compared to the d vs t graph. This could be because some points in the v vs t graph would
illogically trend downwards, which created a loss in displacement. The reason for this may
be faulty graphing.

7) What is the equation for your v vs t graph?

𝑦 = 0.7445𝑥 − 1.494

Percentage error:
(𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒) − (𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)
𝑋 100%
(𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒)
0.7445 − 0.5840
= 𝑋 100%
0.7445
= 21.56 % 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟

Discussion Q:
 6

Assume that you were able to obtain a much longer table to use in this lab. You use the
same cart and mass. Using your acceleration and assuming the cart starts from rest,
how long is the new longer table if it takes 6 seconds for the cart to reach the end?

With this information, time is given as 6 𝑠, acceleration is 0.7445 𝑚/𝑠 2 , and initial velocity
is 0 𝑚/𝑠. To find displacement of this newer table one must use the formula:
1
𝑑 = 𝑣𝑖 𝑡 + 𝑎𝑡 2
2
This will solve for displacement, which would also give the length of the table. Solving this
would lead to:
1
𝑑 = 0 × 6 + 0.7445 × 62
2
26.802
𝑑 = 0+
2
𝑑 = 13.40 𝑚

Therefore, the length of the table would be 13.40 𝑚.

Here are some data sets to show what happens with the new length:

Table 1. Distance vs time

Time (s) Distance (m)

4.000 5.956
4.500 7.538
5.000 9.306
5.500 11.26
6.000 13.40

Table 2. Velocity vs time

Time (s) X velocity (m/s)

4.000 1.489
4.500 1.675
5.000 1.861
5.500 2.047
6.000 2.333
 7

Sources of Error:

Manual calculation errors could be the assumption that the velocity on the computer is perfectly
linear when, in fact, it is off with each point varying off track slightly. This means the computer’s
best fit line is an average, whilst the points that were manually used are instantons points and
could change the results compared to the computer’s calculations as they may not have been the
best average.

Another thing is the limitation of this lab. With the table being so short, the cart began to
decelerate rapidly as the weight hit the ground, which actually messed up the graph slightly as a
decrease in velocity was showing at the end. This forced the last terminating points to be deleted
to have a velocity trend that only goes upwards. For the future, it should be known that the table
should be longer and also taller as this could allow the weight to drop more smoothly.

Conclusion:

This experiment was to measure the uniform acceleration of a cart using Logger Pro Video
Analysis. A pulley system was set up, with a 200g mass attached to the cart, and the motion of
the cart was recorded as the mass free fell, thereby accelerating the cart. Minor problems, such as
frication and deceleration when the mass hit the ground, were present, but the data proved the
hypothesis. Both the velocity vs time graph and the displacement vs time graph had a linear
relationship respectively with the velocity vs time graph indicating constant acceleration. The
experimentally determined acceleration was 0.5840m/s², while the theoretical acceleration was
0.7445m/s², therefore 21.56% error. Finally, while the results were good, but there was room for
improvement: a longer table and a more accurate technique of measuring velocity. Other
exploration of the phenomenon could be to change the masses on the pulley system, as well as
change the angle of the pulley system to find out more about uniform acceleration.