Force vectors

In this lab we will manage power vectors. Notwithstanding the overall properties of vectors
examined hitherto in this lab, the accompanying definitions will be helpful as we work
through this lab. The vector amount of at least two powers is the resultant. The resultant can,
essentially, supplant the individual vectors. The equilibrant of a bunch of powers is the power
expected to keep the framework in harmony. It is equivalent and inverse to the resultant of
the arrangement of powers.

OBJECTIVE
The motivation behind this lab is to acquire insight in working with vector amounts. The lab
includes the exhibition of the interaction of the expansion of a few vectors to frame a
resultant vector. Graphical answers for the expansion of vectors will be completed.

EQUIPMENT
1. Force table
2. pulleys
3. ring
4. string.
5. Metric ruler
6. Protractor
7. graph paper

Background:
In the event that few powers with various sizes and headings act at a point its net impact can
be addressed by a solitary resultant power. This resultant power can be discovered utilizing
an uncommon expansion measure known as vector expansion.
In the first place, how about we consider the interaction of vector expansion by graphical
methods. Figure 1 shows the instance of two vectors An and B, which are accepted to address
two powers. Utilizing the "parallelogram strategy", we define a boundary from the tip of
vector A corresponding to B and equivalent long to B. How about we mean this line as vector
B||. The resultant R of the vector expansion of An and B is found by developing the straight
line from the point at the tail of vector A to the tip of the recently built vector B||.
During the time spent vector option, every vector to be added is first settled into parts as
displayed in Figure 1. The segments along every pivot are then added arithmetically to
deliver the net parts of the resultant vector along every hub. This prompts the accompanying:

Rx = Ax + Bx = Acosq1 + Bcosq2

Ry = Ay + By = Acosq1 + Bcosq2

Besides, the point q that the resultant R makes with the X hub is given by the accompanying:
Experimental Procedure:

We utilized an instrument called the Force Table. A ring was set around a pin in the focal
point of the power table. Surprises to the ring pull it in various ways. The size (strength) of
each pull and its course can be shifted. The extent of the string strain (power) is controlled by
the measure of mass that is dangled from the opposite finish of the string. The worth of the
draw (power) is mg, where g = 9. 81 m/s2 (review Fw = mg). The power table permitted us to
exhibit when the amount of powers following up on the ring rises to nothing. Under this
balance condition, the ring, when delivered, stayed on the spot.
First we mounted the Force Table corresponding to the functioning work area (level
position). We ensured it was level.

Experiment with two forces:

1. We set a pulley at the 30o blemish on the Force Table and put an aggregate of 0. 35
kg (which incorporates 0. 05 kg of the mass holder) on the finish of the string. Then,
we put a second pulley at 130o imprint and spot an aggregate of 0. 25 kg (counting 0.
05 kg of the mass holder). The extent of the powers delivered by these masses is
recorded in Table 1.

2. Next, we controlled by experimentation (See Appendix) the greatness of mass

required and the point at which it should be submitted in request to put the ring in
balance. The ring is in balance when it is focused on the Force Table. We ensured that
every one of the strings were in such a place that they are coordinated along a line that
goes through the focal point of the ring.

3. From the tentatively resolved mass, we determined the power created and recorded
the extent and bearing of this equlibrant power in Table 1.

4. From the worth of the equlibrant power, we decided the size and course of the
resultant power and recorded them in Table 1 too.  
Calculations

1. We tracked down the resultant of these two applied powers by scaled graphical
development utilizing the parallelogram strategy (See Appendix). Utilizing a ruler
and a protractor, we built vectors whose scaled length and course addressed F1
and F2. Our scale was 1N= 2.5cm. We read the size and bearing of the resultant
from our graphical arrangement and recorded them in Table 2.

2. Using condition 1, we determined the parts of F1 and F2 and recorded them into
the insightful arrangement bit of Table 3. We added the segments mathematically
and decided the extent of the resultant by the Pythagorean Theorem. Then, at that
point, we estimated the point of the resultant. (See Appendix)

3. Finally, we determined the rate mistake of the size of the trial worth of FR
contrasted with the logical arrangement of FR. We additionally determined the
rate blunder of the extent of the graphical arrangement of FR contrasted with the
scientific arrangement.
TABLE 1
Force Mass (kg) Force (N) Direction
F1 0. 35  3.45 30o
F2 0. 25  2.45 130o
Equilibrant FE .39  3.83 248o
 
Resultant FR .39  3.83 68o
 

TABLE 2:  Graphical Solution

Force Mass (kg) Force (N) Direction
F1 0. 35  3.43 30o
F2 0. 25  2.45 130o
Resultant FR .39  3.86 68o
 

Table 3:  Analytical Solution

Force Mass Force Direction X component Y component
(kg) (N)
F1 0. 35  3.43 30o  3.43cos(30)=2.9  3.43sin(30)=1.72
7
F2 0. 25  2.45 130o  2.45cos(50)=1.5  2.45sin(50)=1.88
7
Resultant .39  3.86  68.56o  1.41  3.59
FR  
Error Calculation:
 
1. Percent error magnitude experimental compared to analytical = Force: [(Experimental
– Analytical)/Analytical] x 100% =[(3.83 – 3.86)/3.86] x 100%= -.78 Direction:
[(Experimental – Analytical)/Analytical] x 100% =[(68 – 68.56)/68.56] x 100%= 82

2.  Percent error magnitude graphical compared to analytical =  Force: [(Graphical –

Analytical)/Analytical] x 100% = [(3.86 – 3.86)/3.86] x 100%= 0 Direction:
[(Graphical – Analytical)/Analytical] x 100% = [(68 – 68.56)/68.56] x 100%= -.82

Conclusion:

Over the span of this lab, we acquired commonality in working with vector amounts. We
exhibited the cycle of the expansion of a few vectors to shape a resultant vector tentatively,
graphically, and mathematically. By utilizing every one of the three of these strategies, we
had the option to perceive how every strategy delivers a marginally extraordinary resultant
power (N) and resultant bearing (in degrees). This is evident in the information tables. As
indicated by our percent blunder calculations, the graphical technique is more precise than the
exploratory strategy. Potential wellsprings of mistakes incorporate 1) contact in the pulleys,
2) the way that we disregarded the mass of the strings, and 3) blunders in heading of the
powers if the strings were not at 90 degrees digression to the ring. Blunders toward the
powers if the strings were not at 90 degrees digression to the ring would have caused the best
wellspring of mistake. In the event that the points were a tiny smidgen off on the power table,
this would have slanted the weight important to approach the powers. Rubbing in the pulleys
in all likelihood added to the mistake too. It was neccessary to pull at the pulleys and ensure
they were adjusted effectively. In the event that pulleys were not utilized, the blunders would
have gone up on the grounds that laying on the edge of the power table would cause more
noteworthy rubbing. Likewise, the pulleys help to hold the strings set up and the points of the
course would have been slanted in the event that we had not used the pulleys. Ultimately, the
heaviness of the strings would have slanted our information marginally, yet insufficient to
have a genuine effect in the percent mistake.
 Appendix

1. Test (experimentation) Method:

Add the necessary third power F3 determined from the above techniques to adjust the
other two powers. The ring ought to stay focused. On the off chance that not, shift the
bearing or potentially measure of the third power until it does. This adjusting power is
known as the harmony power and it is equivalent in extent and inverse in course to the
resultant power of F1 and F2. Note the distinction between the qualities and headings
of F3 that you acquired tentatively and hypothetically (utilizing graphical and
segment strategies).

2. Parallelogram Method:
Utilizing a protractor and a ruler, attract bolts to address the powers F1 and F2. Recall
that you should pick a scale so the length of every bolt is relative to the greatness of
the power, and the course of every bolt should be a similar heading as the power it
addresses. Use either head-to-tail technique or parallelogram strategy to draw a bolt
that addresses the resultant of the vectors. Measure the length of the bolt, decide the
greatness (size) of the resultant and its bearing. To adjust F1 and F2, you should apply
a power F3 whose extent is equivalent to this resultant power, yet inverse in bearing.

3. Segment Method:
With your mini-computer, decide the x and y segments of F1 and F2. Recollect that
Fx = Fcos q and Fy = F sin q. Track down the x and y segments of the resultant from
the amount of x and y segments. Draw a right triangle with x and y parts as sides, and
the hypotenuse addressing the resultant. Compute the greatness of the resultant from
the square base of (Rx2 + Ry2). Figure the bearing of the resultant by utilizing q R =
tan-1 (Ry/Rx). Does this outcome concur with the graphical strategy?