Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theory
The second step was drawing a coordinate system with one axis, the x-axis in
our case, pointing in the direction of the center of the circle. The directions of the
arrows indicate which directions are positive.
The third step was breaking up any forces that needed x and y components
based on our coordinate system from the second step.
The fourth step was adding all the x and y-components. Applying Newton’s
Second Law, we set the x-components' net force equal to the centripetal
acceleration formula because the pig was accelerating in the positive x-direction.
Conversely, we set the sum of the y-components to 0 because the pig was not
accelerating in the y-direction.
The fifth step was deriving an equation for acceleration due to gravity (g). We
needed to make sure that our equation only had two unknowns apart from
acceleration due to gravity that we would measure in the lab: the distance from
the ceiling to the pig while it is in motion (h) and the time it takes the pig to make
one revolution (T).
FTcosθ = m(2𝜋/T)2r
FT = mg/sinθ
(mg/sinθ)cosθ = m(2𝜋/T)2r
[(mg/sinθ)cosθ]/m = [m(2𝜋/T)2r]/m
[(mg/sinθ)cosθ]/m = [m(2𝜋/T)2r]/m
(g/sinθ)cosθ = (2𝜋/T)2r
g(cosθ/sinθ) = (2𝜋/T)2r
g((r/x)/(h/x)) = (2𝜋/T)2r
g((r/x)(x/h)) = (2𝜋/T)2r
g(r/h) = (2𝜋/T)2r
[g(r/h)]/r = [(2𝜋/T)2r]/r
[g(r/h)]/r = [(2𝜋/T)2r]/r
g/h = (2𝜋/T)2
g = (2𝜋/T)2h
Measurements
Calculations
In order to find the acceleration due to gravity, we will substitute our average
values for h, distance from the ceiling to the pig, and T, the time it takes the pig to
make one revolution, into our equation for acceleration due to gravity.
g = (2𝜋/T)2h
g = (2𝜋/(2.01 ± 0.01))2(0.98 ± 0.02)
g = (6.28/(2.01 ± 0.01))2(0.98 ± 0.02)
g = ((6.28 ± 0.00)/(2.01 ± 0.01))2(0.98 ± 0.02)
*Please note that our calculations for acceleration due to gravity used exact
values, not rounded ones.
Conclusions
The value we calculated for the acceleration due to gravity (g) is 9.58 ± 0.19
m/s2. The theoretical value for g is 9.81 m/s2. Our calculated value for g is
approximately 0.23 lower than the theoretical value. Although each of our three
trials had very similar numbers for h and T with an uncertainty of only 0.01 to
0.02, the slight variation still made a notable difference in our results. For
example, g was approximately 9.77 m/s2 in trial 1, which is only 0.04 less than
the theoretical value for g. However, using the average values for h and T, we
calculated a value for g that was 0.19 lower than our calculated value for g from
trial 1 and 0.23 lower than the theoretical value for g. This proves that even a
small discrepancy in trials can significantly change results as seen with our lower
calculated value for g using average values.
IA Practice