analysis of newton's second law lab
Analysis of Newton’s Second Law Lab
The first lab we did for chapter 4, Newton’s Second Law, dealt with the relationships between force, acceleration, and mass. Our goal was to verify Newton’s Second Law that says force is equal to the mass multiplied by the acceleration.
Our procedures included setting up the lab according to the directions and collecting data as someone moved the cart that we set up forward and backward in two settings – with additional mass and without additional mass. For the part where we had to attach mass, we observed that the mass can be rotated sideways as we did our data collecting, so we decided to fix its position with tape, which did not affect the significant digits of the mass. After we were done with both trials, we showed linear relationships for both the force vs. acceleration graphs. In our first trial, we had a .629 kg cart and an equation of F=0.6251a+0.1289; in our second trial, we had a 1.143 kg cart with the added mass and an equation of F=1.170a-1.075. In the equations, F represented force and a represented acceleration. We observed in the equations that the slope of the graphs were equal to, ignoring the insignificant digits, the mass of the cart used in the corresponding trials.
The data were viable; the observations that we had made perfect sense to us since we knew that force is equal to mass times acceleration. The y-intercept, however, was unexpected; y intercepts were not present in the second law of Newton. The increased/decreased force then, I presumed, must have been caused by discrepancies made from minor friction caused by the wheel of the cart. Experiments regarding these y-intercepts should also be interesting future experiments.
The first lab we did for chapter 4, Newton’s Second Law, dealt with the relationships between force, acceleration, and mass. Our goal was to verify Newton’s Second Law that says force is equal to the mass multiplied by the acceleration.
Our procedures included setting up the lab according to the directions and collecting data as someone moved the cart that we set up forward and backward in two settings – with additional mass and without additional mass. For the part where we had to attach mass, we observed that the mass can be rotated sideways as we did our data collecting, so we decided to fix its position with tape, which did not affect the significant digits of the mass. After we were done with both trials, we showed linear relationships for both the force vs. acceleration graphs. In our first trial, we had a .629 kg cart and an equation of F=0.6251a+0.1289; in our second trial, we had a 1.143 kg cart with the added mass and an equation of F=1.170a-1.075. In the equations, F represented force and a represented acceleration. We observed in the equations that the slope of the graphs were equal to, ignoring the insignificant digits, the mass of the cart used in the corresponding trials.
The data were viable; the observations that we had made perfect sense to us since we knew that force is equal to mass times acceleration. The y-intercept, however, was unexpected; y intercepts were not present in the second law of Newton. The increased/decreased force then, I presumed, must have been caused by discrepancies made from minor friction caused by the wheel of the cart. Experiments regarding these y-intercepts should also be interesting future experiments.