Timothy Kunsak

Mr. Yackuboskey

APP1

November 13, 2019

Unit 3 Lab Practicum - Uniform Circular Motion

Purpose: The purpose of this Uniform Circular Motion Lab is to prove the equation,

M 4π 2 m 2
=( )n . To do this we conducted a uniform circular motion lab by spinning a rubber
L g

stopper attached to a string above our heads. Using Newton’s Second Law we can say that

v2
Fr = m . We can now rewrite centripetal force as v = ωr. Next, we solve for angular velocity
r

to get ω = 2π n. Force now is written as Fr = 4π 2 n 2 mr. Fr is Tension and we can set Fr equal to

T cos θ. θ is equal to radius of the circle divided by the length of the string. The radius cancels

on both sides and L is multiplied on both sides to isolate T. Since T is equal to mg, we can write

the equation as Mg = 4π 2 n 2 m L. With some simple rearranging, we can come to get the

M 4π 2 m 2
equation =( )n which will be verified.
L g

Data:
 M/L vs n^2
0.24
y = 0.0175x - 0.0068
Mass (hanging mass measured in kg)/L(length of string

R² = 0.9924

0.18
in meters)

0.12

0.06

0
0 3.5 7 10.5 14
n 2 (rev/sec)^2

Analysis:

Above is a graph that we formed using the two given data tables. The charts show 5 different

trials where we changed the mass of the hanging object each time. We spun the rubber stopper
around for 20 revolutions and timed it. To find our n value we took 20 revolutions and divided by

M
the total amount of time it took to complete the 20 revolutions. The graph is vs n 2.
L

M
The slope of the graph is equal to .0175. The equation of the line is = .0175(n 2) - .0068. Our
L

M 4π 2 m 2
main equation that we’ve been using is =( )n . To calculate the mass of the rubber
L g

4π 2 m m
stopper from the slope, we set .0175 equal to ( ). We multiplied .0175 times 9.81 2 which
g s

is g. We then divided that number by 4π 2 to cancel everything out except for kg. The kg in that

equation will be the mass of the rubber stopper in kg. To find that mass in g, we multiplied the

new number by 1000. With that equation from the slope, we calculate our rubber stopper to

weigh approximately 4.35g. To calculate the percent difference, we took 4.35g and divided by

our actual mass of the rubber stopper which was 12.2g. We multiplied that number times 100 to

4π 2 m
get approximately 65% difference. To find g we set .0175 equal to ( ).We substituted .0122
g

kg in for m. We divided 4π 2(.0122kg) by .0175 (slope) to estimate the acceleration to due to

m
gravity. With this equation we estimated the acceleration due to gravity to be 27.5 . This was
s2

m
not close to the actual acceleration due to gravity of 9.81 . To calculate the percent difference
s2

m m
we took 27.5 and divided by 9.81 to find 2.80. We multiplied that by 100 to get 280%
s2 s2

difference.
Conclusion:

In conclusion, we could not fully prove the equation. When we went to estimate the mass of the

rubber stopper, we were way off from our actual mass of the rubber stopper. We calculated it to

be 4.35g when it really was 12.2g. And as for the gravitational field strength, we calculated the
m m
value to be 27.5 when it really was 9.81 . Because we were off in calculating both values,
s2 s2

we can credit the errors to having an incorrect slope because the slope value was used to

calculate both values. The equations that we used for finding the values were correct as was the

M
way we calculated n 2 and values. Because all of the math was done right, the only way our
L

numbers could have been so far off were if the trials were inaccurate and not sufficient in giving

us accurate data. We had a fairly inaccurate way of counting revolutions. We simply counted 20

revolutions and timed how long it took to complete that. There were several systematic errors

that could have come about while counting like this. Because we “eyeballed” the revolutions

every time, it was a systematic error that flawed our trials. Also, we only completed one trial per

tested mass. We should have completed at least three trials per tested mass to mitigate error.

Instead we only had one trial per mass. It would now take one flawed trial to potentially skew

our data. After seeing that our expected calculations and percent differences were so off we

concluded that our slope value was off as a result of systematic error in data collecting and

flawed the data because of it.