Centripetal Force Lab Activity Free Essays

Centripetal Force Lab Activity Analysis: 1. An) Average Percent Difference: 50g: (values communicated in newtons) Step 1: Calculate the normal estimation of the two factors Average Value= Value 1+ Value 2/2 = 0. 49+ 0. We will compose a custom paper test on Centripetal Force Lab Activity or on the other hand any comparative theme just for you Request Now 61/2 = 1. 1/2 = 0. 55 Step 2: Calculate the contrast between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 0. 61-0. 49 = 0. 12 Step 3: Calculate % contrast % difference= distinction of the factors/normal of the factors x 100 = 0. 12/0. 55 x 100 = 21. 81% 100g: (values communicated in newtons) Stage 1: Calculate the normal estimation of the two factors Average Value= Value 1+ Value 2/2 = 0. 98+ 1. 84/2 = 2. 82/2 = 1. 41 Step 2: Calculate the contrast between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 1. 84-0. 98 = 0. 86 Step 3: Calculate % contrast % difference= distinction of the factors/normal of the factors x 100 = 0. 86/1. 41 x 100 = 60. 99% 150g: (values communicated in newtons) Step 1: Calculate the normal estimation of the two factors Average Value= Value 1+ Value 2/2 = 1. 47+ 2. 19/2 = 3. 66/2 = 1. 83 Stage 2: Calculate the contrast between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 2. 19-1. 47 = 0. 72 Step 3: Calculate % contrast % difference= distinction of the factors/normal of the factors x 100 = 0. 72/1. 83 x 100 = 39. 34% 200g: (values communicated in newtons) Step 1: Calculate the normal estimation of the two factors Average Value= Value 1+ Value 2/2 = 1. 96+ 2. 66/2 = 4. 62/2 = 2. 31 Step 2: Calculate the distinction between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 2. 66-1. 96 = 0. 70 Step 3: Calculate % distinction difference= contrast of the factors/normal of the factors x 100 = 0. 70/2. 31 x 100 = 30. 30% 250g: (values communicated in newtons) Step 1: Calculate the normal estimation of the two factors Average Value= Value 1+ Value 2/2 = 2. 45+ 3. 57/2 = 6. 02/2 = 3. 01 Step 2: Calculate the distinction between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 3. 57-2. 45 = 1. 12 Step 3: Calculate % contrast % difference= distinction of the fa ctors/normal of the factors x 100 = 1. 12/3. 01 x 100 = 37. 20% Average % distinction: = Sum of every one of the 5 midpoints/5 21. 81+ 60. 99+ 39. 34+ 30. 30+ 37. 20/5 = 189. 64/5 = 37. 92% B) Slope Calculations (Graph is shown on a different sheet) 50g: Slope= Rise/Run = 0. 61/0. 49 = 1. 25 100g: Slope= Rise/Run = 1. 84/0. 98 = 1. 877 150g: Slope= Rise/Run = 2. 19/1. 47 = 1. 489 200g: Slope= Rise/Run = 2. 66/1. 96 = 1. 357 250g: Slope= Rise/Run = 3. 57/2. 45 = 1. 457 After figuring the incline of each area of the chart (each segment relates to a specific mass utilized in the lab action) it is clear that it fluctuates from it’s anticipated an incentive by an incredible sum. The normal estimation of the slant was 1 as the ascent and the run should be equivalent. Anyway for our situation the ascent and the run changed significantly and along these lines since they were various numbers the incline didn't end up being 1 (the best way to get a slant of 1 is if both the numerator and denominator are equivalent, as a number partitioned without anyone else is constantly 1 and a number separated by an alternate number can never rise to 1). 2. Truly the information gathered verified the condition Fc=42Rmf2. This is on the grounds that the main shifting an incentive for this situation â€Å"f†, had an immediate relationship with the estimation of Fc. The main different qualities that must be resolved in this lab was the range and the mass of the elastic plug however they were consistent factors (steady at 0. 87m and 12. 4g separately) implying that they had no differing impact on the estimation of Fc. For there to be a connection among Fc and 42Rmf2 when the estimation of any of the factors changes the estimation of Fc needs to change too Because the estimation of â€Å"f† had an immediate relationship with the estimation of Fc, when the estimation of â€Å"f† changed the estimation of Fc changed too. In this specific situation when the estimation of â€Å"f† became so did the estimation of Fc. For instance, during the 50g test the recurrence was 1. 2Hz and the Fc was 0. 61N, and during the 100g test the recurrence was 2. 08Hz and the Fc was 1. 84N. This shows as the recurrence increments so does the Fc following up on the framework. This along these lines shows the connection among Fc and 42Rmf2. 3. A) When the string was pulled down and the plug was all the while turning, the plug began turning at a quicker rate (set aside less effort to finish 1 cycle around the excursion) B) This happens basically in light of the fact that the range is being abbreviated. Since the plug on the finish of the string is moving around the even hover at a consistent speed it is hence being followed up on by a steady net-power. For this situation the net-power following up on it (the plug) is Fc, in this manner since it is Fc following up on it, the power can be determined by the recipe 42Rmf2 as that is equivalent to Fc. For this situation in light of the fact that the string with the plug on the end was being pulled down this implies the span of the whole circle was diminishing (less string= littler distance= littler sweep). In that equation if the range is littler that implies that the centripetal power will be bigger. For this situation that bigger the centripetal power following up on the elastic plug, the quicker the elastic plug turns around the level circle. C) The laws of preservation of vitality express that the all out vitality in the framework remains the equivalent yet essentially takes on various structures (motor and potential being models). In this way this case isn't in opposition to the laws of protection of vitality basically on the grounds that when the sweep is diminishing the elastic plug accelerates. In the laws of preservation of vitality when an article is accelerating the item is increasing dynamic vitality. Anyway for this situation while the plug is accelerating the hanging mass (alongside a portion of the string) is tumbling to the ground. From a preservation of vitality point of view when an article loses tallness it loses potential vitality. Thusly for this situation the item at the top additions active vitality while the mass loses potential vitality. In view of this vitality move no vitality is lost in the framework as hen the article is losing potential vitality the other item in a similar framework is increasing active vitality, subsequently the vitality remains the equivalent. D) In figure skating the skaters do precisely the same thing as what was done in this lab try. So as to turn quicker they twist low (get low to the ground) and take care of their arms and legs. This makes them turn a lot quicker than they were initially turning and follows similar rules that th e elastic plug test followed. At the point when they get low they lose potential vitality yet getting low makes them take care of (take care of their legs and arms) and at last have a littler range. This littler span makes them have an a lot more prominent centripetal power and at last makes them turn quicker and makes them increase motor vitality. This adheres to the laws of protection of vitality as when they lose potential vitality they increase dynamic vitality (hypothetically no vitality lost-just moved) Sources of Error: In this specific lab action there were not a lot of potential wellsprings of mistake essentially on the grounds that it was not as muddled an action the same number of others. In this manner all mistakes that were made were essentially human estimation blunders. The fundamental wellspring of blunder in this lab action was estimating the period/recurrence. This was a test basically on the grounds that the individual estimating needed to do a wide range of things in an exceptionally limited quantity of time. That one individual was liable for right off the bat picking a spot along the way of the level hover to start the estimation from, at that point that equivalent individual needed to begin the watch during the little league outline in which the elastic plug passed by that particular point on the circle. From that point the individual needed to tally the plug spend by multiple times and stop the watch when it sat back. This made it extremely hard to get a totally precise estimation for the period and the recurrence, as it was exceptionally hard to get a careful estimation of that timespan. These slight miscounts of the recurrence made the figuring of the centripetal power be somewhat off-base also on the grounds that the computation of centripetal power relied upon the recurrence. This is obvious on the grounds that our â€Å"Fg† and â€Å"Fc† counts are off track, as they should be about a similar number as Fg= Fc. †X-axis= Fc †Y-axis= Fg †point 1= 50g †point 2= 100g †point 3= 150g †point 4= 200g †point 5= 250g Data: Mass of plug: 12. 4g Radius of Rotation: 87cm Mass of suspended masses| Time for 5 cycles| Period (T)| Frequency (f)| FgFg=mhg| FcFc=42Rmf2| 50g| 4. 2s| 0. 84| 1. 2Hz| 0. 49N| 0. 61N| 100g| 2. 44s| 0. 48| 2. 08Hz| 0. 98N| 1. 84N| 150g| 2. 23s| 0. 44| 2. 27Hz| 1. 47N| 2. 19N| 200g| 1. 99s| 0. 4| 2. 5Hz| 1. 96N| 2. 66N| 250g| 1. 65s| 0. 3 4| 2. 9Hz| 2. 45N| 3. 57N| Instructions to refer to Centripetal Force Lab Activity, Essay models