0.784, 2.17
2
Acceleration(m/s2)
0.588, 1.6656
1.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Net Force (N)
Interpretation:
The relationship between the acceleration to net force is that, as the acceleration increases, the net
force also increases, and vice versa. The slope of the graph is , where is constant.
Integrating, the graph is a curve with inverse logarithmic equation. It has no intercepts because there is
no trial conducted that includes no mass (weight) at all, regardless if it is the mass from the hanging
object. Hence, it is apparent that acceleration is directly proportional to the net force if the mass of the
body is constant.
Acceleration vs Mass
3
0.51924, 2.6116
2.5
0.61924, 2.2874
2
Acceleration(m/s2)
0.71924, 1.9099
0.81924, 1.7688
0.91924, 1.5938
1.5
Acceleration vs Mass
1
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Mass(kg)
Interpretation:
In acceleration vs. mass, it is shown that as the mass increases, the acceleration decreases. Conversely,
as the acceleration increases, the mass decreases. Its slope is negative. This graph has an inverse
power equation. This follows that when the cart is loaded (increase in mass, a resisting force), the
acceleration decreases. Thus it can be inferred that acceleration is inversely proportional to mass when
the net force of the body is kept constant.
1. If the mass of the cart in the experiment is 520g and the total hanging mass is 200
g, how long will the cart travel a distance of 100 cm starting from rest?
Given:
Required:
Solution:
i.)
ii.)
In Part 1 (constant mass, changing net force) of the experiment, the net force (m2g, where m2 is the total
hanging mass and g is gravitational pull=9.81 m/s2) varies when the weight of the hanging object connected to
the cart change, thus getting different accelerations. The force’s direction is downward. constant is the mass of
the hanging object while the cart’s mass is constant. Tension is the magnitude of the pulling force exerted by a
string (used in the experiment), cable, chain, or similar object on another object; is to be considered either
acceleration is zero and the system is therefore in equilibrium, or there is acceleration and therefore a net force
is present. Note that a string is assumed to have negligible mass. The cart’s fixed mass is 0.5067 kg; we consider
the mass (m1) to be the mass of the cart + mass of the picket fence (which is 0.01254 kg) with a total of 0.51924
kg. Increasing the weight .20kg per trial, we get an increasing acceleration. The experiment’s resulting data
shows that, as we increase the mass of the pulling object, its net force do the same way too, so thus the
acceleration. In Part A. of the graphs, the relationship between the acceleration to net force is that, as the
acceleration increases, the net force also increases, and vice versa. Hence, we can say that the acceleration is
directly proportional to the net force as to the mass of the object (when it is constant).
In Part 2 (changing mass, constant net force) which the mass of the cart is changing and the hanging object is the
constant. The mass of the cart is added a mass of 0.100 kg per trial. As we can observe, while we pile up the
In Part 3 (changing mass, changing net force) mass of cart and the net force are both changing variables. Here,
we add the mass of the cart, 0.100 kg on 2nd trial, 0.200 kg, 0.300 kg and 0.400 kg on succeeding trials. While the
hanging object increase from 0.020 kg (on first trial) to 0.040 kg, 0.060 kg, 0.080 kg and 0.100 kg on next turns.
Although greater mass was added to cart, net force still overcomes its resisting force. Thus, the acceleration is
increasing. . It is true using the equation , where m2 is the mass of the hanging mass showing direct
proportionality of it with acceleration.
Percent errors we obtained are not higher than 40% but not even lower than 35%. Such large errors are neither
to be blame on the smart timer, friction nor air resistance. Those are obtained from discrepancies on the
placement of photogates (20 cm and 70 cm), the starting (releasing) point of the dynamics cart (which is placed
on 0 cm part of the dynamics track) and the table where we place the experiment’s equipment. Let’s discuss
first the table where the dynamics track is at. When we first place the dynamics cart on the dynamics track, we
observe that when we made it at rest, it suddenly moves to the beginning of the track (to 0 cm). We think that
the table is not that well flattened. Though I think it contributes a very little error. Next is the photogates. When
we launched the dynamics track each trial, I see that the track moves forward because of the push or impact of
the cart to the track’s end. Hence, the track moves while the photogates are at rest, thus keeping us to place the
photogates in its proper position. But sometimes we forget to do it. Though, it doesn’t contribute that much
error. Lastly, the greatest contributor of error is the releasing point of the cart. As I realized, when we release
the cart at 0 cm (at the back end of the cart) as shown in Fig. 1, the velocity instead of a 0 value, it has greatly
than 0. The right way to correct it is shown in Fig. 2, we should place the cart with the picket fence exactly at 20
cm where the first photogate is located, where the photogate will blink the instant the cart moves, so that the
velocity will be 0. And we know that acceleration describes how the velocity changes with respect to time:
. Doing this will surely greatly decrease the percent error from 40% to possibly less than 4%.

Fig. 1 Fig.2
Credits to:
DANNA MAY MENDEZ
VON_SCIENCEO8
En.Wikipedia.org
http://www.physicsclassroom.com
http://hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu
other credits that are not mention, credits to you.