PHYS 3 All sections under KSAR Reviewer for 1st lab exam PLEASE DO NOT RELY HEAVILY ON THIS

REVIEWER. YOUR NOTES AND YOUR MANUAL ARE STILL THE BEST REVIEW MATERIALS. NOT EVERYTHING IS DISCUSSED IN HERE AND THIS WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY. Exercise 2. Vector Addition We used three methods to add vectors, namely: 1. Experimental or force table makes use of the idea of the equilibrant (negative of resultant) 2. Graphical a. Parallelogram 2nd vector is drawn from the origin, resultant is diagonal of parallelogram b. Polygon 2nd vector is drawn from tip of first vector, resultant is from origin to tip of last vector 3. Analytical or Component Method mathematical method of solving The EQUILIBRANT is the NEGATIVE OF the RESULTANT DONT FORGET: When we did this exercise, we reported all our angles from one direction (EAST). This was done in order for us to properly compare our angles and compute the percent difference between them. The parallelogram method is a very good method to use for two vectors but it can also be used for n vectors. The parallelogram method is limited only to the addition of two vectors. However, since addition of two vectors results to one resultant vector, we can add this resultant to the third vector using the same method, and produce a new resultant which is the sum of the three vectors. If given n vectors, n and n > 2, using the parallelogram method, we add the 1st and the 2nd vector, producing a resultant vector R1. Then we add R1 to the 3rd vector, which would produce another vector R2. We then add R2 to the 4th vector, so on and so forth. We repeat the process until we produce a vector Rn-1 that is the sum of the (n+1)st and nth vector. The vector Rn-1 is the resultant of all n vectors. Is it possible to add two vectors having different magnitudes and yield zero resultant? No. PROOF: Given a vector A with magnitude |A| and direction A and a vector B with magnitude |B| and direction B wherein |A| |B|, to yield zero resultant the sum of the x and y components of the vectors should be zero. Hence, the sum |A|cos A + |B| cos B = 0, and |A|sin A + |B| sin B = 0. Then |A|cos A = - |B| cos B and |A|sin A = - |B| sin B. But since |A| and |B| cannot be negative, only the cosines and sines can make the equation negative. For cos A = - cos B and sin A = - sin B to be true, then B = A + 180 using the definition of

cosine of sum of two angles. Substituting the value of B, |A| cos A = |B| cos A and |A| sin A = |B| sin A or |A| = |B|, which contradicts our assumption. Hence, only when |A| = |B| that we could get a zero resultant for two vectors. How about if instead of only two vectors, we have three vectors to be added, is it possible to add these vectors and get zero resultant? Yes. PROOF: For three vectors, A with magnitude |A| and direction A, B with magnitude |B| and direction B, C with magnitude |C| and direction C wherein |A| |B| |C|, to yield zero resultant, the sum of the x and y components of the vectors should be zero. Hence the sum |A|cos A + |B| cos B + |C| cos C = 0, and |A|sin A + |B| sin B + |C| sin C = 0. We break the addition process into two by adding first the two components and then adding this sum to the last component. Upon adding |A|cos A and |B| cos B, and |A|sin A and |B| sin B we create a new vector R with x component |R| cos D = |A|cos A + |B| cos B and y component |R| sin D = |A|sin A + |B| sin B . The original sums |A|cos A + |B| cos B + |C| cos C and |A|sin A + |B| sin B + |C| sin C now become |R| cos D + |C| cos C and |R| sin D + |C| sin C. From the original sums, |R| cos D + |C| cos C = 0 and |R| sin D + |C| sin C = 0 or |R| cos D = -|C| cos C and |R| sin D = - |C| sin C. Following the conclusion of the first paragraph, |R| cos D = -|C| cos C and |R| sin D = - |C| sin C can only be true if D = C + 180. Hence, using this condition, |R| =|C|. This is the condition so that we can get a zero resultant for three vectors. We have observed from this exercise that: 1. The most accurate method of solving vectors is by using the analytical or component method. 2. We have not made a conclusion as to which of the two other methods is more accurate since data is inconclusive. NOTE: WHETHER TO USE THE STANDARD ANGLE VARIANT OF THE COMPONENT METHOD OR NOT DEPENDS ON YOU. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE OLD METHOD, STICK TO IT. BOTH METHODS WHEN DONE RIGHT WOULD YIELD THE SAME RESULTS. Exercise 3. 1. Regression For Physics 3 were mostly going to deal with variables that are LINEARLY RELATED. There are other relationships between variables. These can be quadratic, exponential or logarithmic, etc. If we assume two variables, for example: time and distance, to be linearly related we check this assumption by finding the equation of the line that best fits the graph, or finding the curve that would best quantify the relationship of the two variables. The technique of finding the equation of this line is called linear regression. The quick method of finding the slope and y-intercept of the line using a calculator was taught to you already during the laboratory session. This shortcut is calculator-dependent so make sure that during the exam you know how to do the shortcut in your calculator.

REMEMBER, THE LETTERS THAT STAND FOR SLOPE AND Y-INTERCEPT IN THE CALCULATOR DEPEND ON THE BRAND. CASIO CALCULATORS USE THE EQUATION Y=A+BX. THEREFORE, A IS Y-INTERCEPT AND B IS THE SLOPE. CHECK FIRST WHETHER THIS HOLDS FOR YOUR CALCULATOR. The long method is solving for the slope and y-intercept using summations:

The slope-intercept form of the equation of the line is of course y = mx + b. In order to say that the linear relationship is strong the coefficient of determination must at least be 0.8. Exercise 4.2. Motion along a Frictionless Inclined Plane In this exercise, we tried to find out about the motion of an object along an inclined plane. We know that the motion that was exhibited by the object is uniformly accelerated rectilinear motion. For inclined planes, the acceleration of an object is dependent only on the inclination of the plane rather than its mass. We know that . The main aim of the exercise is to find an experimental value for g, which theoretically has the value of 9.8 m/s2. From the above equation the expression g can be derived as The acceleration of the object was taken from the data of position x and time t. We graphed the x vs t2 and found out that upon comparison with one of the kinematics equations, the slope of this graph is half of the acceleration. We found out that The acceleration of glider with attached mass is different from the acceleration of the glider without attached mass. Indeed the motion is UARM following the almost constant slope of v vs. t. We attributed the difference of the experimental to the theoretical result to the presence of friction. Exercise 5.1 In this exercise, we tried to determine the effect of mass to acceleration, or we tested the validity of the second laws assumption that acceleration is inversely proportional to mass. We derived the equation using the free body diagram for the acceleration of the glider moving along the track as pulled by a hanging mass. That equation is: ( )

What we actually found out is a proof the second law: the heavier the glider, the slower it moves or the smaller its acceleration. We found an inverse proportionality between mass and acceleration. Exercise 5.3 and 5.4 Friction is present in bodies at rest (static friction) and objects in relative motion (kinetic friction). We used two experimental methods to determine the coefficient of friction and the magnitude of the friction: Horizontal plane and inclined plane method. With the horizontal plane method we tried to prove the relation or that normal force and frictional force have a direct proportionality and we tried to find out the effect of area of contact to friction. We determined the coefficients of static and kinetic friction, following the relation:

We found out that: 1. Friction is independent of the surface area of contact. 2. Friction is proportional to the normal force. The higher the normal force, the higher the friction. 3. The coefficient of friction is a constant and does not depend on the area and normal force. For the inclined plane method, we tried to determine the effect of the nature of surfaces in contact the coefficient of friction from the angle from which the wooden block fell. The coefficient of friction can be computed from this angle as and . We found out that 1. The coefficient is a constant for the pairs of surfaces in contact. 2. In general,