Forces Lab

Raw Data Table

Correlation between components of force in a translated equilibrium, translation from
normal: 45˚+-0.5˚
Mass (g) +- Trial 1 (N) +- Trial 2 (N) +- Trial 3 (N) +- Trial 4 (N) +- Trial 5 (N) +-
0.01 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
101.80 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
202.55 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
300.75 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
400.48 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.4
502.53 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.4

Processed Data Table-Mean Values

Correlation between components of force in a translated equilibrium, translation from
normal: 45˚+-0.5˚
Mass (g) +-0.01 Mean Average (N) +-0.2
101.80 0.8
202.55 1.6
300.75 2.4
400.48 3.4
502.53 4.2

Processed Data Table-Horizontal component forces

Correlation between components of force in a translated equilibrium, translation from
normal: 45˚+-0.5˚
Mass (g) +-0.01 Horizontal Component (N)
101.80 1.3
202.55 2.1
300.75 3.8
400.48 5.2
502.53 6.5

Processed Data Table-Percentage Error

Correlation between components of force in a translated equilibrium, translation from
normal: 45˚+-0.5˚
Mass (g) +-0.01 Percentage Error (%)
Force on Newton-metre Horizontal Component
101.80 50 50
202.55 25 25
300.75 17 17
400.48 12 12
502.53 9.5 9.5
Calculations:
Mean average of force:
The purpose of taking the mean average is to reduce the bias induced in by random
errors in the data set. The formula for mean average is:
𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥3 + 𝑥4 + ⋯ + 𝑥𝑛
𝑥̅ =
𝑛

Sample Calculation

0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8 + 0.8

𝑥
̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑠𝑒𝑡 1 = = 0.8 𝑁
5
Horizontal component of force:
The apparatus was set up as per the diagram on the right.
There are three forces being exerted, the first is by the
Newton-meter, the second is by the mass, in a direction of
the normal to the tangent at which it makes contact with the
boom. The third is outward by the boom, making the net 90- 𝜃
force of the apparatus ‘0’. Let the force exerted by the mass
be ‘W’, the force exerted by the Newton-metre be ‘F’, and
the horizontal force exerted by the boom be ‘J’.
Figure 1
𝐽 sin 𝜃 𝑊 0
( ) = − (( ) + ( ))
𝐽 cos 𝜃 0 𝐹
|𝐽| = √𝑊 2 + 𝐹 2 (𝑃𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑠)

Sample Calculation

𝐽𝑠𝑒𝑡 1 = √(101.80)(0.0098)2 + 0.82 = 1.3 𝑁

Percentage error of force:

The purpose of finding percentage error is to compare the measured value to the range
of possible values that the value could be. This is to find the precision of the data set.
The formula for percentage error is:
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% =
𝑥̅

Sample Calculation

(0.8 + 0.2) − (0.8 − 0.2)

𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% 𝑠𝑒𝑡 1 = = 0.5 = 50%
0.8

Percentage error of horizontal component of force:

|𝐽| = √𝑊 2 + 𝐹 2 (𝑝𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑠)
→ 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% 𝑊 < 0.1%, 𝑡ℎ𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒
→ 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% 𝑗 = 2 × (𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% 𝐹 ) × 0.5 = 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% 𝐹

Sample Calculation

𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟% 𝐽 𝑠𝑒𝑡 1 = 2 × (0.5) × 0.5 = 0.5 = 50%

 Qualitative Data:
 The translation from the normal is a constant 45 degrees in all trials
 The protractor used to measure the angle of translation is incremented in 1˚, thus the
uncertainty is +-0.5˚
 The electronic balance used to measure the mass of the weight was calibrated to 0
 The balance is incremented in 0.01g, as it is digital, the uncertainty is 0.01g
 The mass measurement flickers between numeric readings of +-0.2g in some of the
trials
 The Newton-metre is calibrated to 0.4N increments, thus, the uncertainty is +-0.2N
 The altitude of the weight decreases proportionally to the mass of the weight
 The experiment took place under the air conditioner
 Vibrations could be felt within the vicinity of the experiment apparatus
 Facing downwards, without weights, the Newton-metre shows a positive reading
Correlation between components of force in a
translated equilibrium
8
Force exerted on Newton-metre
Series2
Horizontal Component of force
Series5
Max Error
7 y = 0.016x - 1.0
Trendline
y = 0.013x - 0.074
Min Error
6 y = 0.0098x + 0.92

5
Max Error
y = 0.0095x - 0.37
Trendline
Force (N)

y = 0.0086x - 0.12
4 R² = 0.99832
Min Error
y = 0.0075x + 0.24

0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00
Mass (g)

Note that the error bars for the x-axis are negligible as error on the horizontal axis is
0.001% at most.
Analysis
Post examination of the data procured from conducting this experiment suggests that
there is a strong linear correlation between the weight of the mass and the force
measurement on the Newton-meter. The trend line describing the relation between these
two variables is in the form y=ax+b, where ‘a’, the slope-coefficient is a positive constant,
implying that there is a positive linear correlation between the weight of the mass and
the force exerted on the Newton-metre. The coefficient of determination of the trend line
(R^2) is a value of 0.998, implying that the trend line accurately fits the data points. The
trend line also indicates that an increase of 1g in the mass results in an increase of
0.0086 Newtons with due to a translation of 45˚ from the normal.
However, the equation of the trend line, y=0.0086x-0.12, implies that there is a
force of 0.12 Newtons acting on the Newton-metre when the weight of the mass is ‘0’.
This could be due to random errors in the collected data set, as the range of the data for
the independent variable value of ‘0’, as per the max and min error lines, is between
0.24 and -0.37 Newtons. However, it is also likely that this is a systematic error, caused
by the measuring equipment. In addition to this, the slope of the min and max error lines
also imply that the force exerted on the Newton-metre, with an increase in 1g of the
mass of the object exerting a downwards force, could be between a 0.0075 and 0.0095
Newtons.
The correlation between the weight of the mass and horizontal component of
force applied by the boom, is calculated as a linear correlation with a positive slope. The
slope indicates that a 1g increase results in a 0.013 Newton increase in the horizontal
component force. However, there is a constant term in the trend line, implying that at 0g
there is a force being applied. However, impact of the uncertainty places this point
anywhere between 0.92 and -1 Newtons. The slope of this line, 0.13, is greater than the
slope of the Newton-metre/weight trend line, 0.086, and thus, the horizontal component
of force will always be greater than the force exerted at a 45˚ angle in a translated
equilibrium of 45˚.

Explanation of Results
The net force being exerted in each trial is ‘0’ as there is ‘0’ acceleration on all the
masses within the experiment apparatus (i.e: equilibrium state). As a result, the
magnitude of the horizontal component of force exerted by the boom is equal to the sum
of the forces exerted by the weight of the mass and the Newton-metre. Furthermore, as
direction of the incident force of the object will be at a normal to the tangent of incidence,
forming a right triangle, in which the length of the hypotenuse is equal to the magnitude
of the horizontal force (refer to figure 1). This is corroborated using the slopes of the
graphs. Let ‘x’ equal the mass of the object:
(0.13𝑥)2 − (0.086𝑥)2 = (0.0097𝑥)2
The weight of the object is equal to 0.0098 multiplied by its mass. In the equation above,
the weight of the object is calculated as 0.0097 multiplied by its mass, this can be
attributed to uncertainty as this value is well within the bounds of the error for the
calculated value of weight. Thus, it can be concluded that with a translation of 45˚, the
net force is divided in the ratio (-0.13) : (0.086) : (0.0097).
Evaluation of errors
In this experiment, there were both systematic and random errors, which led to
uncertainties when making calculations. An observation made during the experiment
was that the Newton-metre was not calibrated accordingly, and when facing downwards
did not read ‘0’. This is because the Newton-metre did not negate the force applied by
the spring scale, creating a constant difference between the measured value and the
real value. This is a systematic error in the data set, which in the function for the trend
line is read as a constant value.
In addition to this, it was also observed that there were minute fluctuations in the
Newton-metre readings. This is possibly due to the air conditioning, which added an
additional fluctuating downwards force on the apparatus. This is a random error as this
impacts precision more than it does accuracy. However, the fluctuations were to a lesser
degree than which could be measured accurately by the Newton-metre. While this is the
case, the impacts of this error on the data are visible in Data Set 4, Trial 4 and Data Set
5, Trial 5.
There are also measurement uncertainties in the data, which propagated when
calculating values such as the horizontal force. The result of measurement uncertainties
can be seen reflected in the graph, where the min and max error bars represent the
range of values where the data points could have been located. However, this is due to
constant errors, as a result, when measuring smaller quantities, the percentage error is
greater. The implications of this are that instead of a (-0.13) : (0.086) : (0.0097) force
ratio as proposed earlier, the ratio could be anywhere between a (-0.16) : (0.075) :
(0.0097) to a (-0.098) : (0.095) : (0.0097) ratio. The percentage error could be minimized
in further trials by using equipment more appropriate for smaller forces, or by measuring
larger forces.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of this experiment suggest that there is a positive correlation
between the weight of the mass, the force exerted by the Newton-metre and the
horizontal component of force exerted by the boom. The data also suggests that, at a
45˚ translated equilibrium, the ratio between the forces exerted, respectively, is (0.0097)
: (0.086) : (-0.13). In this experiment, the systematic errors cannot affect this outcome,
as it is the slope of the trend line being used and not the data points. Random errors
have limited impact on the data, as the range of the measurement error of the measuring
equipment is greater than the proposed range by the random error. However, as a
result, the percentage error of the data is reaches 50% in the first data set. This
experiment can be improved using more equipment with lesser increments in numerical
values or by increasing the weight of the mass to minimize percentage error in the data.