PERFORMING VECTOR ANALYSIS AND DETERMINING UNKNOWN MASS

ANALYTICALLY, GRAPHYCALLY, AND EXPERIMENTALLY THROUGH “KTRATC”

(Keeping the Ring At The Center)
By: Calantoc, C., Caasi J., Reyes L., Payopay, J., Gillarion, W.
Department of Physics, College of Science, University of the Philippines Baguio
Baguio city, Philippines 2600

Abstract
The main objective of this experiment is to use analytical, graphical and
experimental techniques to verify the methods of vector algebra. The use of the
tail-to-tip and parallelogram method was done for both graphical and
experimental technique while the experimental technique was done with the use
of a force table. Results for all cases had a percentage error below 15% so it is
acceptable except for case 3 which had a 15% error which may be caused either
by the changes in the level of the tale or the weights were not properly weighed.
For future references, the students recommend to study and familiarize
themselves with the different concepts in vector addition before doing the
experiment and do an analytical technique rather than doing a trial and error
which may take some time. And also, we recommend to check the level of the
table every after use and students should come prepared to avoid human errors.
Introduction
A vector is probably the most frequently used entity in physics since it used to characterize spatial
behavior[1]. Vector carries the information about magnitude and direction of a physical quantity-
displacement, velocity, acceleration, force, etc. [2] In this experiment, vector, particularly vector addition,
is studied analytically, graphically, and experimentally through the approach “Keeping The Ring At The
Center” (KTRATC).
Since force is the physical quantity that was mainly used to illustrate vector addition, KTRATC
included the use of a force table. A force table is a large metallic disk with a stand. Its disk is ruled in
degrees just like that of a protractor. This was a necessary feature for the distinguishing of the direction of
the physical quantity, which, as mentioned earlier, is force. Pulleys and string are also present since these
are to be used in the hanging of the masses. The pulleys merely change the direction of the force exerted
by the strings, from downward to outward along the surface of the table. On the other hand, the strings
were tied to, and pull on, a central ring that is free to move. This central ring will only remain at the
center if the vectors are equal to zero, or in other words, if the forces are balanced out. The force acting
along the string is proportional to the mass hung from that string[3]. With this, force table could also be
used in determining an unknown mass.
The objective of this study is to verify the methods of vector algebra using experimental,
graphical, and analytical techniques. The using of the force table described above, is an experimental
technique. Analytical techniques and graphical techniques include the Tail To Tip Method and
Parallelogram Method. In here, the resultant vectors and the equilibrants can be distinguished.
To add two vectors graphically, the tail of the second vector is placed at the head of the first
vector. A vector from the tail of the first vector to the head of the second vector is the sum of the two
vectors. The actual displacement represented by vector C can be determined graphically by measuring the
direction of the displacement relative to some reference orientation and length of the vector C relative to a
scale[4].
 The analytical method involves component vectors, the x- and y- components. The components
can also be used to determine the resultant vectors. Since A = Ax+ Ay and B = Bx + By, the resultant of
A and B can be expressed as the sum of the component vectors[5].
𝐶 =𝐴+𝐵 (𝐸𝑞1)

Given the components, the magnitude and direction of a vector can be determined by,

The accuracy of the results of these three techniques can be compared by determining their
percentage errors given by the equation:
𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
%𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = | | 𝑥 100% (Eq 4)
𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Methodology
Before using the actual set-up for the experiment, it was first made sure that the table was level
by using a bubble. The force table was then placed on the leveled table and a ring was placed in the
middle. For the experimental set-up, which was kept constant until the final case, a thread was attached to
the ring and at the end of it was a 200 g mass of weights and other materials which were weighed by a
platform balance. The thread was placed on a pulley which was set at 210⁰. After preparing the controlled
set-up, the first case was done wherein another pulley was placed with another mass and was moved in
different angles until the ring was in the middle. The angle and mass were then recorded. Same thing was
done for case two and another pulley and mass was positioned but the pulleys on controlled set-up and the
on the first case were kept constant. For case three, the pulley from case 1 was moved by 10⁰. Weights
were added to the pulley until the ring was in the center and at the same time, the direction was also
changed. On the fourth case, the two added pulleys from case 1 and 2 were placed perpendicular from
each other and weights were added to adjust the strength of the pulleys to keep the ring at the center. For
the fifth case, another set of pulley and mass was added, and then all the pulleys were set at a different
direction and magnitude. All of the measurements, both magnitude and direction, were recorded by the
students every after each case. The students also computed analytically for the resultants and equilibrants
of each pulley in every case. With the use of the gathered data, the students also did graphs of each case
in a graphing paper with a protractor and a ruler. Scales were indicated and the resultants and equilibrants
were then derived based purely on the graph. Results were recorded and the percentage error (Eq 4) of
each case was computed.
For the final part of the experiment, for the unknown mass, the students removed all the pulleys
and replaced the controlled set-up with a block with an unknown mass. Two trials were done. For the first
trial, two pulls with equal magnitude were added and to keep the ring at the center, pull directions and
magnitude were adjusted. On the second trial, pull magnitudes were increased. It was made sure that what
was done to other pulley was also done to the other to keep the two in equilibrium. Directions were then
adjusted until the ring was at the center. After which, the block with an unknown mass was measured with
a platform balance and at same time, the students also calculated for its mass with the gathered data. The
two were compared and the results were computed and shown in a form of percentage error (Eq 4).
Results and Discussion
In playing KTRATC, five cases were done and observed. Each case will be discussed separately.
Case 1
In case 1, a 200 g mass was attached to a pulley at 2100. Another pulley was added weighing
200.05 g at an angle of 300. The ring was kept at the center. It is shown in the analytical and graphical
calculation for case 1 that the pulley added has a magnitude of 200.05 and an angle of 210 0 confirming
that the ring will be kept at the center due to the system’s equilibrium. An error of 0.03% for both the
mass was calculated and 0% error was gathered for the angle in case 1 confirming the accurate results in
keeping the ring at the center.
Case 2
For case 2, two different pulleys were used to KTRATC. Pull 1 weighed 200.05 g at a 90 0 angle
while Pull 2 weighed 196.32 at an angle of 3300. The ring was kept at the center. The error for both the
analytical and graphical calculations 0-0.95% confirming the degree of accuracy on the methods done and
the instruments used.
Case 3
While in case 3, after moving one pull 10° westward, it is evident that the magnitude of the pull
increases. The magnitude shifted from 200.05g to 213.70g. Observe that the magnitude increases as the
angle between the component vectors increases to maintain a constant resultant and equilibrant vectors.
Table 2 and 3 shows the percentage error for analytical and graphical calculations respectively. The
percentage errors were 13.00% and 15.00% for magnitude, and 10.10% and 05.24% for the direction.
These errors came from several factors. First, the force table where the system was setup may not be
properly leveled after several cases were done. Also, some of the experimenters are also sitting upon the
force table which is supposedly not valid. Second, the weights were not properly weighed. And lastly, the
experimenters assumed that the ring was already at the center because of the vectors and not caused by
the friction on the pulley and the tension force on the strings.
Case 4
In case 4, the two component pulls must be perpendicular to each other. It means that the
magnitude of these pulls must be relatively equal or close to each other to cause their resultant vector
equal to the experimental vector which is also considered as the equilibrant. Table 1 shows the
magnitudes of pulls 1 and 2 as 148.43g and 146.71g respectively. Observe that their magnitudes are
relative close to each other. Tables 2 and 3 shows the percentage errors from the two types of calculations
of errors. 0.35% and 00.00% errors were observed from the analytical and graphical calculations for case
4, while there are 05.17% and 00.00% errors in their calculated directions. These small errors are resulted
by carefully following the instructions and the directions given.

Case 5
For case 5, three component pulls were used. Magnitudes and directions used in this case can be
found in table 1. Observed that the pulls, including the experimental pull, are perpendicular to each other.
Analytical and graphical calculations supports these directions to be correct for giving minimal
percentage error that was showed in tables 2 and 3. While the magnitudes used are quite wrong.
Calculated percentage errors for analytical and graphical calculations are 13.87% and 13.50%
respectively. These errors are quite high that may be caused by the factors mentioned in case 3.

Case 6
Lastly, in case 6, all the masses were removed and the 200 g at 2100 and replaced with a block of
wood with an unknown mass. Two trials were done for the last case. For the first trial, two pulls with
equal magnitude were added and tried to KTRATC by adding the pull directions. The ring was kept at the
center since the two pulls were equal in magnitude, the only difference are the angles. Therefore, the
system was in equilibrium. An error of 4.28% and 2.15% were gathered for the first and second trial
respectively. The error might have been due to the rounding up in the calculations for the components in
both of the trials.

Conclusion
With the small error percentages determined in the results and discussion, it can be said that the results of
the three techniques are close to one another. The data gathered experimentally is known to be precise relative to
what was computed analytically and graphically. The methods of vector algebra using experimental,
graphical, and analytical technique are thus verified. Since the unknown mass of the wood, as solved
using the force table, is close to the value presented by the top-loading balance, it can also be concluded
that one could compute mass, and other different magnitudes of physical quantities, by using the
principles of vector addition.
With this experiment, it was confirmed that for KTRATC to happen, the magnitude (force) acting
from it should be equal to zero; that the resultant vector must be equal to that of the equilibrant.
The students recommend the future experimenters to first familiarize themselves with the
concepts of vector addition before performing the activity. Instead of pure trial and error, they should
consider doing the analytical technique along hand. Having a list of certain values and probabilities (ie,
where to position the pulley; ranges of mass of the objects to be hung) could help the experimenters finish
their task on time.

References
[1]
D. Giancoli, Physics Principles with Application: Seventh Edition (Pearson Education Inc, United States of
America, 2014), p. 6
[2]
P. Tipler, G. Mosca, Physics for Scientists and Engineers (5 th ed), Chapter 21 and 23, Susan Finnemore Brennan,
USA, 2004
[3]
Quantities of Measurement. Retrieved Sept 06, 2015 from http://www.physicsphenomena.com/Vectors.html
[4]
Vectors. Retrieved Sept. 06, 2015 from http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lea/courses/nexa/cww4hnd.htm
[5]
R. Freedman, H. Young, University Physics with Modern Physics (13 th ed), Chapters 22-23, Philippines: Pears on
Education South Asi Pte. Ltd., 2012