Saturday, August 22, 2020

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 article test on Centripetal Force Lab Activity or then again any comparative subject 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 % distinction % difference= contrast 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 distinction between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 1. 84-0. 98 = 0. 86 Step 3: Calculate % distinction % difference= contrast 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 distinction between the two factors Difference= Value 2-Value 1 = Fc-Fg = 2. 19-1. 47 = 0. 72 Step 3: Calculate % distinction % difference= contrast 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 contrast 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 contrast 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 facto rs/normal of the factors x 100 = 1. 12/3. 01 x 100 = 37. 20% Average % distinction: = Sum of each 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 computing the incline of each area of the diagram (each segment relates to a specific mass utilized in the lab movement) it is clear that it shifts from it’s anticipated an incentive by an incredible sum. The normal estimation of the incline was 1 as the ascent and the run should be equivalent. Anyway for our situation the ascent and the run changed enormously and in this way 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 isolated 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 fluctuating 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 span and the mass of the elastic plug yet they were consistent factors (steady at 0. 87m and 12. 4g separately) implying that they had no fluctuating 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 also 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 subsequently 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 essentially on the grounds that the sweep is being abbreviated. Since the plug on the finish of the string is moving around the flat hover at a consistent speed it is along these lines being followed up on by a steady net-power. For this situation the net-power following up on it (the plug) is Fc, accordingly in light of the fact that 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 on the grounds that the string with the plug on the end was being pulled down this implies the sweep of the whole circle was diminishing (less string= littler distance= littler range). In that equation if the sweep 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 pivots around the flat circle. C) The laws of preservation of vitality express that the all out vitality in the framework remains the equivalent yet just takes on various structures (dynamic and potential being models). Hence this case isn't in opposition to the laws of protection of vitality essentially in light of the fact that when the span 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 protection of vitality point of view when an item loses stature it loses potential vitality. Along these lines for this situation the article at the top additions motor vitality while the mass loses potential vitality. As a result of this vitality move no vitality is lost in the framework as hen the item is losing potential vitality the other article in a similar framework is increasing active vitality, consequently the vitality remains the equivalent. D) In figure skating the skaters do precisely the same thing as what was done in this lab test. 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 r ules that the elastic plug try followed. At the point when they get low they lose potential vitality however getting low makes them take care of (take care of their legs and arms) and eventually have a littler range. This littler range makes them have an a lot more noteworthy centripetal power and eventually makes them turn quicker and makes them increase dynamic vitality. This observes the laws of preservation 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 basically in light of the fact that it was not as entangled an action the same number of others. In this way all mistakes that were made were just human estimation blunders. The principle wellspring of blunder in this lab movement was estimating the period/recurrence. This was a test essentially in light of the fact that the individual estimating needed to do a wide range of things in a modest quantity of time. That one individual was answerable for right off the bat picking a spot along the way of the even 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 check the plug spend by multiple times and stop the watch when it took a break. This made it exceptionally hard to get a totally precise estimation for the period and the recurrence, as it was hard to get a careful estimation of that timespan. These slight erroneous conclusions of the recurrence made the computation of the centripetal power be marginally off-base also in light of the fact that the figuring of centripetal power relied upon the recurrence. This is apparent in light of the fact that our â€Å"Fg† and â€Å"Fc† counts are misguided, as they should be almost 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. 34| 2. 9Hz| 2. 45N| 3. 57N| Instructions to refer to Centripetal Force Lab Activity, Essay models

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.