Actual Method

Trial 1




































Actual Method
Trial 2




































Polygon Method
Trial 1
SCALE : 1cm : 10g



































F
1
= 50g = 5cm = 54
F
2
= 45g = 4.5cm = 143
F
3
= 85g = 8.5cm = 227
F
4
= 6.6cm = 354.5
A.V = 65g = 6.5cm ; 355.5
E.V. = 6.6cm ; 354.5
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
6.5 6.6
6.5
100%
=1.54 %
%Error of Resultant = 1.54%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
355.5354.5
355.5
100%
=0.28 %
%Error of Angle = 0.28%
Polygon Method
Trial 2
SCALE : 1cm : 10g



































F
1
= 45g = 4.5cm = 59
F
2
= 55g = 5.5cm = 113
F
3
= 70g = 7.0cm = 203
F
4
= 9.0cm = 318
A.V = 90g = 9.0cm ; 315.2
E.V. = 9.0cm ; 318
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
9.0 9.0
9.0
100%
=0.00 %
%Error of Resultant = 0.00%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
315.2318
315.2
100%
=0.89 %
%Error of Angle = 0.89%
F
1
y = F
1
SIN
=(50g)(SIN 54)
= 40.451

F
2
y = F
2
SIN
=(45g)(SIN 143)
= 27.082

F
3
y = F
3
SIN
=(85g)(SIN 227)
= -62.165

Component Method
Trial 1





F
1
x = F
1
COS
=(50g)(COS 54)
= 29.389

F
2
x = F
2
COS
=(45g)(COS 143)
= -35.939

F
3
x = F
3
COS
=(85g)(COS 227)
= -57.970

= F
1
x + F
2
x + F
3
x
=29.389 - 35.939 - 57.970
= -64.519

= F
1
y + F
2
y + F
3
y
=40.451 + 27.0822 - 62.165
= 5.367

R =

2

= .1
2
.
2

= 64.742g







F
1
= 50g = 54
F
2
= 45g = 143
F
3
= 85g = 227
F
4
= 65g = 355.5 (ACTUAL)
= tan
-1
|

|
= tan
-1
|
5.367
64.519
|
=4.755

4
= 360-
= 360 - 4.755
= 355. 245
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
6564.742
65
100%
=0.40 %
%Error of Resultant = 0.40%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
355.5355.245
355.5
100%
=0.07 %
%Error of Angle = 0.07%
F
1
y = F
1
SIN
=(45g)(SIN 59)
= 38.573

F
2
y = F
2
SIN
=(55g)(SIN 113)
= 50.628

F
3
y = F
3
SIN
=(70g)(SIN 203)
= -63.417

Component Method
Trial 2





F
1
x = F
1
COS
=(45g)(COS 59)
= 23.177

F
2
x = F
2
COS
=(55g)(COS 113)
= -21.490

F
3
x = F
3
COS
=(70g)(COS 203)
= -64.435

= F
1
x + F
2
x + F
3
x
=23.177 - 21.90 - 64.435
= -62.748

= F
1
y + F
2
y + F
3
y
=38.573 + 50.628 - 63.417
= 61.849

R =

2

= .
2
1.
2

= 88.106 g







F
1
= 45g = 59
F
2
= 55g = 113
F
3
= 70g = 203
F
4
= 90g = 315.2 (ACTUAL)
= tan
-1
|

|
= tan
-1
|
61.849
62.748
|
=44.587

4
= 360-
= 360 - 44.587
= 315.413
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
9088.106
90
100%
=2.10 %
%Error of Resultant = 2.10%
%Error =
....
..
100%
=
315.2315.413
315.2
100%
=0.07 %
%Error of Angle = 0.07%
Analysis Questions:
1. What is the significance of the fourth force F4? How is it
related to the vector sum of the first three forces?
The fourth force F4 is the equilibrant force. It is the force that
cancels out the other three forces. The first three forces and the
fourth force or the equilibrant force are both equal in
magnitude but their direction is the total opposite. That is the
reason why the equilibrant force cancels the other three forces
that makes the ring center in the table.

2. How do the results of the polygon method compare with the
actual values of F4 and 4? What could be a cause of the
difference in values?
The results of the polygon method compared with the actual
values of F4 and 4 are slightly different. The actual method
showed a result of 65g and 355.5 while the polygon method
showed a result of 66g and 354.5. The cause of the slight
difference in values is that because of the drawing the actual
polygon. They are maybe some small inaccuracy in the
measurements of line and the drawing the angle. But
nevertheless, the percent errors which are 1.54% and 0.28%,
respectively, is very small.

3. How do the results of the component method compare with
the actual values of F4 and 4? What could be a cause of
the difference in values?
The results of the polygon method compared with the actual
values of F4 and 4 are slightly different. The actual method
showed a result of 65g and 355.5 while the component method
showed a result of 64.742g and 355.245. The component method
is the absolute correct value that is to be considered. The cause
of the difference in value is that from the actual method, the
ring is not perfectly centered in the force table. But the percent
errors of 0.4% and 0.07%, respectively, are very small that it is
not recognizable.







Conclusion

Resolution of forces is the breaking down of forces into its
individual component forces. The other way around, these
individual component forces can be composed together to form
the original force. Resolution of forces allows us to analyze
causes of motion separately in vertical, horizontal and other
directions. These components of forces or vectors can be thought
of the influence of these vectors to each other. This means that
one component vector with a given direction is influenced by
another component vector with a different direction or vice
versa. This two different component vector can be also
represented in a single two-dimensional vector.

In terms of finding an accurate finding in the resultant
force, the more reliable and more accurate method is the
component method. In polygon method, you must have skills in
measuring accurate lines and angles and drawing them to
perfection. This is very hard to attain since our drawing skills
cannot be that perfect. It can come very close but not really
exact. But when we use component method, this perfection can be
attained. It involves computation of the given measurements.
Nothing can beat computation when it comes to accuracy. It
provides as many significant figures. For example, in this
experiment, we both used polygon method and component
method. When we did the polygon method, its kind of hard
measuring exact 5.5cm, 4.5cm and other measurements and we
know that the one we draw is not exactly 5.5cm, only very close to
that. Measuring and drawing angles is also the same with that.
From measuring and actually drawing the angles is not that easy
and also not that very accurate. Compared to when we used the
component method, we used a calculator which can be very
reliable and accurate. I can prove this because the percent
errors in the polygon method trial 1 are 1.54% in resultant and
0.28% in angle while the percent errors in component method
trial 1 are 0.4% and 0.07% respectively. Component method is more
reliable and more accurate among the 2 methods.

While doing the experiment, it cannot be avoided that some
errors will be committed. One error is in the actual experiment.
The goal of the experiment is to find the equilibrant force to
center the ring in the force table. We can say that the ring is like
98% centered, not exact. It is hard to find an exact answer since
the denominations of the mass weights that starts at 5g. This
reflected in the computation of the percent error of the polygon
and component method. Another error is the making of the
polygon method. Since we cannot measure and draw very
accurate lines and angles, there will be some small difference in
the actual value. Then after measuring the angle and the side of
the equilibrant force, its result might differ slightly than the
actual value, which was proven when we compare the results of
the polygon method with the actual method.

The experiment was somehow hard and it took us quite some
time to finish. This is because our mass weights have 5g as its
minimum denomination. As we come close to center the ring, we
can no longer do other than change the angle. If that doesnt
work, then we have no choice but to try another set of given.
Because adding to one part can cause a huge difference.
Although it gives some challenge in doing the experiment, at least
add another denomination of mass weights less than 5g to help
us. This could also lead into more accurate results in the
experiment because there would be less error. I also recommend
to future users to make sure that to balance the weight hangars
first before doing the experiment. The ring must be at the center
when no mass weights are added to the hangars. Our huge
mistake was that we didnt check if the force table was balanced,
as a result, we have to start from the beginning. Lastly, I also
recommend to always look at birds eye view, not in slanting
angle. This is can cause some errors in observing the results of the
experiment.





Applications

As you one can see in a highway, some curved roads are
banked. Why curved roads in highways are usually banked? When
vehicles go through turnings, they travel along a nearly circular
arc. There must be some force to produce the required
centripetal acceleration. Centripetal force is provided to the
vehicle by following by friction, banking of roads or both.
Anyone riding in a car that is turning feels the force tending to
keep the car and it's contents going in the same direction. If the
car is going fast enough, it will not stay on the road.
By banking the curve, the car's tires are forced onto the surface,
increasing the friction holding the car on the road. How does this
happen? The force tending to keep the car going in the same
direction pushes the tires onto a banked surface. If the road was
completely vertical, all the outward force would push the tires
onto the road surface. If the road is horizontal, none of the
outward force pushes the tires on the road surface. The steeper
the bank, the more the tires will be forced onto the surface in a
curve. Obviously too steep a bank could result in the car sliding
down the surface.

Friction is the frictional resistance to the relative motion of
two solid objects is usually proportional to the force which
presses the surfaces together as well as the roughness of the
surfaces. Since it is the force perpendicular or "normal" to the
surfaces which affects the frictional resistance, this force is
typically called the "normal force" and designated by N.
According to Kurtus (Kurtus, 2009), some applications of friction
is you could not walk without the friction between your shoes and
the ground. As you try to step forward, you push your foot
backward. Friction holds your shoe to the ground, allowing you
to walk. Consider how difficult it is to walk on slippery ice, where
there is little friction. Another, writing with a pencil requires
friction. You could not hold a pencil in your hand without
friction. It would slip out when you tried to hold it to write. The
graphite pencil led would not make a mark on the paper without
friction.

A pencil eraser uses friction to rub off mistakes written in
pencil lead. Rubbing the eraser on the lead wears out the eraser
due to friction, while the particles worn off gather up the pencil
lead from the paper. Friction is very important even if it has its
bad sides.


Reference
Kurtus, R. (2009, May 21). Uses of Friction. Retrieved from School for Champions :
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/friction_uses.htm#.U9-
cGfmSzw8
Nave, R. (n.d.). Friction. Retrieved from Hyper Physics: http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict.html
oldschool. (2012). Explain why curved roads are generally banked? Retrieved from
Yahoo! Answers:
https://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120228021203AAM
v9XN