Physics I – PHYS 243L

(General Physics, with Calculus)

Title: Newton’s Second Law

Course Name/ Number: Physics I (Calculus) – PHYS 243L

Class Time/ Section Number: 4:00 pm – 6:50 pm / Section 1

Performed: October 3rd, 2018

Submitted: October 10th, 2018

I. ABSTRACT

Newton’s Second Law states that the acceleration of an object is directly

proportional to the net force acting on that object and is inversely proportional to
 Da Costa

the object’s mass. The relationship between force, mass and acceleration can be

described by the equation F = ma. This experiment’s objectives included

collecting force and acceleration data for a cart as it is moved back and forth;

comparing force vs. time and acceleration vs. time graphs; analyzing a graph of

force vs. acceleration; and determining the relationship between force, mass, and

acceleration. A Dual-Range Force Sensor, and an Accelerometer was used to

measure the force and acceleration of a cart with two different masses moving

back and forth. The Vernier computer interface, and the Logger Pro software

were used to create force vs. time, acceleration vs. time, and force vs. acceleration

graphs. The force vs. time and the acceleration vs. time graphs for both trials

portrayed the same trend of sinusoidal correlation and were very similar in shape.

The maximum and minimum correspond at the same points in time. For Trial I

the force and acceleration were smaller than for Trial II, as the mass increased

during the second trial. When the force is a minimum, the acceleration is also a

minimum, and when the force is a maximum, the acceleration is also a maximum.

The graph of force vs. acceleration revealed a positive slope with a trend of direct

correlation. For Trial I, the regression line was calculated to be F = 0.6731a +

0.0255, and for Trial II it was calculated to be F = 1.1890a + 0.03647. The slope

for Trial II is larger, as an additional mass was added to the cart. The mass of the

cart does not change, which therefore means that the force and acceleration are

directly proportional, verifying Newton’s Second Law where the net force is

equal to the mass of the object times acceleration. The percent error for Trial I

2
 Da Costa

was of 2.38% and for Trial II was of 0.04%. The errors were insignificant, and the

results therefore validated Newton’s Second Law.

II. INTRODUCTION

A. Objective:

3
 Da Costa

The objectives of this experiment were to collect force and

acceleration data for a cart as it moved back and forth.; to compare force

vs. time and acceleration vs. time graphs; to analyze a graph of force vs.

acceleration; and to determine the relationship between force, mass, and

acceleration.

B. Theory:

Newton’s Second Law states that “the acceleration of an object as

produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net

force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to

F net
the mass of the object”. It can be mathematically represented as: a=
m

but is often rearranged to the following equation:

F net=ma

In this equation, due to unbalanced forces, the acceleration, a, is

directly proportional to the net force, Fnet, and inversely proportional to the

object’s mass, m, in which the net force is the vector sum of all the forces.

Therefore, the larger the force applied on an object, the larger its

acceleration.

Newton’s Second Law can be proved by experimental data

collected in a force vs. acceleration linear graph, in which the slope

represents the mass of the object. The greater the slope of the graph, the

greater the force needed to move the object, and consequently, the greater

the acceleration. The equipment used to measure simultaneously the force

and acceleration of an object moving back and forth are a Dual-Range

4
 Da Costa

Force Sensor, and an Accelerometer, in which allow for the determination

of the relationship between the net force on the cart, its acceleration, and

mass, by analyzing its recordings.

III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A. Equipment:

The apparatus used in this experiment were a computer, a Vernier

computer interface, Logger Pro, a Dual-Range Force Sensor, a Low-g

Accelerometer, a Vernier Dynamics Track, a Vernier Dynamics Cart, an extra

mass, and tape.

B. Procedure:

Trial I

1. The sensors and Logger Pro were set up for fata collection.

2. The range switch on the Dual-Range Force Sensor was set to 10 N.

3. The Force Sensor was attached to a Dynamics Cart, so a horizontal

force could be applied to the hook, directed along the sensitive axis

of the sensor.

4. Accelerometer was attached so the arrow was horizontal and

parallel to the direction that the cart would roll. Arrow was

oriented so that if you pulled on the Force Sensor, the cart would

move in the direction of the arrow.

5. The mass of the cart with the Force Sensor and Accelerometer

attached was found. The mass was recorded in the data table.

5
 Da Costa

6. The Force Sensor and Accelerometer were connected to the

Vernier computer interface.

7. The file “09 Newtons Second Law” was opened from the Physics

with Vernier folder.

8. To zero the sensors, the cart was placed on the Dynamics Track on

a level surface. It was verified that the cart was not moving and

clicked on Zero. It was checked that both accelerometer and Force

were selected and clicked on OK.

9. It was now ready to collect force and acceleration data. It was

grasped the Force Sensor. It was clicked on Collect and the cart

was rolled back and forth along the track covering a distance of

about 10 cm. The motion was varied so that both small and large

forces were applied. Hands only touched the hook and not the

sensors or cart body. Force was only applied along the track so that

no frictional forces were introduced.

10. It was clicked on Examine, and the mouse was moved across the

force vs. time graph. To turn off Examine mode, it was clicked on

Examine, again.

11. The graph of force vs. acceleration appeared to be a straight line.

To fit a straight line to the data, it was clicked on the graph, and

then clicked on Linear Fit. It was recorded the equation for the

regression line in the data table.

12. It was printed copies of each graph.

6
 Da Costa

Trial II

13. It was added an extra mass to the cart. It was removed the

Accelerometer, attached the 0.5 kg mass to the cart, and then re-

attached the Accelerometer. The total mass of the cart, sensors, and

additional mass was recorded in the data table.

14. Steps 4-8 were repeated.

IV. DATA

Table 1 Trial I

Mass of cart with sensors (kg) 0.6895 kg

Regression line for force vs. acceleration data F = 0.6731a + 0.0255

Data table representing the values obtained from Trial I, for the mass of cart with

sensors, and the regression line for force vs. acceleration data.

Table 2 Trial II

Mass of cart with sensors and additional mass (kg) 1.1895 kg

Regression line for force vs. acceleration data F = 1.1890a + 0.03647

Data table representing the values obtained from Trial II, for the mass of cart with

sensors and additional mass, and the regression line for the force vs. acceleration

data.

Trial I

Graph 1 - Force vs. Time, Acceleration vs. Time, and Force vs. Acceleration Graphs

7
 Da Costa

Graph represents force vs. time, acceleration vs. time, and force vs. time data of cart rolling back

and forth on dynamics track.

Trial II

8
 Da Costa

Graph 2 - Force vs. Time, Acceleration vs. Time, and Force vs. Acceleration Graphs

Graph represents force vs. time, acceleration vs. time, and force vs. time data of cart rolling back

and forth on dynamics track, with the addition of a 0.500 kg mass.

V. ANALYSIS

A. Calculations and Graphs:

Force and acceleration data for a cart as it moved back and forth were collected,

as represented on Graphs 1 and 2. The force vs. time and the acceleration vs. time

graphs for both trials portrayed the same trend of sinusoidal correlation, or

pattern, and were also identical in shape and slopes. The maximum magnitudes

are not numerically exact, but the maxima and minima correspond at the same

9
 Da Costa

points in time, as the acceleration increased, so did the force. For Trial I the force

and acceleration were smaller than for Trial II, as the mass increased during the

second trial. When the force is a minimum, the acceleration is also a minimum,

and when the force is a maximum, the acceleration is also a maximum. The graph

of force vs. acceleration revealed a positive slope with a trend of direct

correlation, in which its regression should give a straight line, where the slope is

equal to the mass of the object, m. Due to experimental error, the graph was not a

perfect straight line, but Logger Pro was used to obtain a line of best fit, and

therefore calculate the regression line for the force vs. acceleration data. For Trial

I, the regression line was calculated to be F = 0.6731a + 0.0255, and for Trial II it

was calculated to be F = 1.1890a + 0.03647. The slope for Trial II is larger, as an

additional mass was added to the cart. The mass of the cart does not change,

which therefore means that the force and acceleration are directly proportional,

verifying Newton’s Second Law where the net force is equal to the mass of the

object times acceleration.

B. Discussion of Error:

The equipment used in this experiment to measure force and acceleration

were a Dual-Range Force Sensor, and an Accelerometer respectively. Error could

have been caused by the instruments not being properly calibrated. The room in

which the experiment was performed contained many different objects, including

electronic equipment that caused electromagnetic interference altering data.

Frictional force could have also been introduced unintentionally, decreasing the

10
 Da Costa

force for an accelerating object. The percentage error of the experimental value of

the slope or m for both trials, were calculated using the following equation:

mexpeimental −mtrue value

In which mexperimental is the slope (mass) obtained from the force vs. acceleration

graphs for Trials I and II, and mtrue valueis the mass of the cart with sensors for trial

I, and the mass of cart with sensors and additional mass for Trial II.

The results obtained in Graph 1 and 2 for the slope, or m, were plugged in to the

equation above:

For Trial I

0.6731 ( kg )−0.6895(kg)
% error= × 100=2.38 %
0.6895(kg)
For Trial II

1.1890 ( kg )−1.1895(kg)
% error= ×100=0.04 %
1.1895( kg)

Therefore, the percent error for Trial I of the experiment was of 2.38%, and for

Trial II was of 0.04%

C. Conclusions:

The understanding of Newton’s Second Law allowed for the collection of force

and acceleration data for a cart as it moved back and forth, the comparison of

force vs. time and acceleration vs. time graphs, the analysis of a graph of force vs.

acceleration, and lastly the determination of the relationship between force, mass,

and acceleration. The force and acceleration data for a cart as it moved back and

forth was collected using a Dual-Range Force Sensor and an Accelerometer,

11
 Da Costa

where the slope of the force vs. acceleration graph represented the mass of the

object. The force vs. time and the acceleration vs. time graphs portrayed a trend of

sinusoidal correlation, where the minimum force corresponds to minimum

acceleration, and maximum force, corresponds to maximum acceleration. The

graph of force vs. acceleration revealed a positive slope with a trend of direct

correlation, in which the regression line was calculated to be F = 0.6731a +

0.0255 for Trial I, and F = 1.1890a + 0.03647 for Trial II. The slope or mass for

Trial II is larger, as an additional mass was added to the cart. The mass of the cart

does not change, which therefore means that the force and acceleration are

directly proportional, and inversely proportional to the mass, verifying Newton’s

Second Law where F = ma. The percent error for Trial I was of 2.38% and for

Trial II was of 0.04%. The errors were insignificant, and the results can therefore

validate Newton’s Second Law.

VI. APPENDICES

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

Use a tennis ball and a flexible ruler to investigate these questions.

1. Apply a small amount of force to the ball by pushing the flat end of

the ruler against the ball. Maintain a constant bend in the ruler. You

may need a lot of clear space, and you may need to move with the

ruler. Does the ball move with constant speed? The ball does not move

with constant speed. It moves at a constant acceleration if we apply a

constant force.

12
 Da Costa

2. Apply a larger force and keep a constant larger bend in the ruler.

Does the ball move with a constant speed? The ball does not move with

a constant speed. It moves at a constant acceleration if we apply a constant

force, even if it is a larger force.

3. What is the difference between the movement when a small force is

applied versus a large force? The difference is that when a small force is

applied, the acceleration will be smaller, and when a large force is applied,

the acceleration will be larger.

ANALYSIS

1. Are the net force on an object and the acceleration of the object directly

proportional? Explain, using experimental data to support your answer.

Yes, the net force on an object and the acceleration of the object are directly

proportional. When the force increases, so does the acceleration. The

experimental data proves this to be correct as the force vs. acceleration graph

is linear.

2. What are the units of the slope of the force vs. acceleration graph?

Simplify the units of the slope to fundamental units (m, kg, s). The units

N
are Newtons per meter per second squared, m .
2
s

3. For each trial, compare the slope of the regression line to the mass being

accelerated. What does the slope represent? In trial I, the slope of the

regression line is smaller, meaning it takes less force to accelerate the object.

In trial II, the slope is larger, meaning it takes more force to accelerate the

13
 Da Costa

object. The slope is the relationship between acceleration and force and

represents the mass of the object.

4. Write a general equation that related all three variables: force, mass, and

acceleration. In general, the three variables of force, mass, and acceleration

can be simply related by the equation F = ma.

14
 Da Costa

VII. REFERENCES

Giancoli, Douglas C. “Describing Motion: Kinematics in One Dimension.” Physics for

Scientists and Engineers With Modern Physics, 4th ed., vol. 1, Pearson Education,

Inc., 2008, pp. 18–50.

“What Is Newton's Second Law?” Khan Academy, Khan Academy,

www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-

motion/a/what-is-newtons-second-law.

“Newton's Second Law.” The Physics Classroom, The Physics Classroom,

www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law.

“Newton's Second Law.” Isaac Physics, Creative Commons License,

isaacphysics.org/concepts/cp_newtonii.

15