Magda,+Siegel,+Huddleston

= = Lab: Acceleration Down An Incline
 * Date Due**: 1/3/11
 * Class Period**: 4
 * Members**: Deanna Magda, Maddy Huddleston, Scott Seigel
 * Purpose**: The purpose of this lab was to verify that acceleration increases with the sin of theta.


 * Objective/Hypothesis:** We believe that the block will increase acceleration as the angle is increased because than the force of gravity on the block will be increased. Since weight is the force that would be broken up into vectors, it is the force that would be affected most directly by increasing the angle.


 * Procedure**: See handout.

Part A:
 * Data:**



*the accelerations are in (m/s^2)

(It was necessary to double the average acceleration because when we performed the trials we measured the width of one black line rather than the distance from the beginning of one line the the beginning of the next. Had we measured correctly the result would have been about double. We also had to find the radians of the angle measures so that excel could calculate the sin of the angle)

acceleration (m/s^2) ||
 * calculated
 * 0.538891726 ||
 * 1.405140328 ||
 * 2.260773691 ||
 * 0.190884339 ||

Data Studio Sample:
 * [[image:magda_pic3.png width="468" height="287"]] ||

class results for part A

Sample Calculations: Derivation of theoretical acceleration with FBD:
 * the .21 used in the above equations if the coefficient of friction. We chose to use coefficient of friction from the class average from the coefficient of friction lab

Derivation of theoretical acceleration for Part B: Part B:

Percent Difference and percent error:
 * see percent error in the analysis


 * Analysis**:

Find the coefficient of friction between your incline and the block using the equation of your trendline. Calculate the percent error between the slope and gravity of earth. Show this calculation.
 * [[image:magda_math33.png width="184" height="113"]] ||
 * [[image:magda_percent_error3.png width="372" height="105"]] ||

Compare the values of the coefficient of friction between your incline and the block to that from last week's lab. Last week we found the coefficient of friction is be .1847 and during this lab we found it to be .2549.

1. Discuss your graph. What does the slope mean? What is the meaning of the y-intercept. The slope is the force acting on the car, gravity. The y intercept is the force/mass.
 * Discussion Questions**:

2. If the mass of the car were doubled, how would the results be affected? The acceleration would be cut in half because a heavier block would move slower, and the more time would make acceleration be smaller.

3. Consider the difference between your measured value of g and the true value of 9.80 m/s/s. Could friction be the cause of the observed difference? Why or why not? Our measured value of g was only slightly higher than than of the true value of g. Friction is mostly likely the cause of this slight difference. If our grouped assumed that the track was entirely frictionless, our value of the frictional force would have been lower than that of the value of g, making friction the most probable cause of the slight difference between the measured value of g and the true value of g.

4. How were the results in Part B? Why was the expectation that your results be within 2% considered to be reasonable when in other labs we allow much larger margins of error? Out results for the percent error fell within the 2% requirement. Our group had a .7132 percent error. The expectation was considered reasonable because, unlike other labs, this lab left the groups with very little room for human error, which is usually the largest cause for the higher percentages of error in each of the other labs.


 * Conclusion**:

In conclusion, our results supported our initial hypothesis. The block that our group used increased its acceleration as the angle was increased. This happened because the force of gravity on the block was increased at the same time. Also, the weight of our block was most directly affected by the increasing angle of the aluminum track. Our results turned out to be very precise as our percentage of error was .7132. The only error that could have altered our results would be that the Data Studio censors were not working properly, or that aluminum track was not __entirely__ frictionless. This could have been improved by wiping the track down more thoroughly before we started the experiment. Otherwise, our results were very good, and supported our hypothesis.

LAB DATE: 12/10/10 DUE DATE: 12/13/10 CLASS PERIOD: 4 MEMBERS: Scott Siegel, Maddy Huddleston, Deanna Magda
 * **Lab: Coefficient of Friction**


 * HYPOTHESIS WITH RATIONALE**: The value for static friction should be greater than the value for kinetic friction. The coefficient of friction will represent the interaction between the wood and aluminum surfaces. We think this because the coefficient of friction is a unitless ratio that measures the interaction between two surfaces. Static friction is when there is no motion, and therefore the coefficient of friction will have a greater value than kinetic friction, which is when the object is sliding. Theoretically, the static friction is the peak of a graph of friction force vs. applied force and the kinetic friction is the average of the horizontal line after the peak.

>
 * OBJECTIVES:**
 * To measure the coefficient of static friction between surfaces
 * To measure the coefficient of kinetic friction between surfaces
 * To determine the relationship between the friction force and the normal force.

Force Meter, USB link, wooden block, miscellaneous masses, string, aluminum track, clamp
 * AVAILABLE MATERIALS:**


 * Part A Data and Observations:**

Mean Tension at Constant Speed



Maximum Tension




 * Part B Data and Observations:**

Static Friction



Kinetic Friction




 * Graph:**




 * Graph Data:**

Static Friction

|| ||
 * Sample Calculation for Normal Force ||
 * [[image:magda_data_colab.png width="130" height="235"]] ||
 * Sample Calculation for static friction: ||
 * [[image:magda_math_co.png width="159" height="144"]] ||
 * 1.2 N=f ||

Kinetic Friction

The normal force and kinetic friction were calculated the same way as above (except it was kinetic instead of static).


 * Analysis:**

Percent difference of class using static friction:  = 15.7 %

the percent difference of class using kinetic friction was found the same way: = 13.9 %

Friction = (coefficient of friction) X normal force Friction / normal = coefficient of friction 1.20 / 6.40 = 0.1875

Percent difference of static coefficient (a vs. b): Percent difference of kinetic coefficient (a vs. b): Found the same way as static = 7.45 %
 * || Normal Force || Static (N) || Coefficient of friction ||
 * || 6.40 || 1.20 || 0.1875 ||
 * || 11.2994 || 2.00 || 0.177000549 ||
 * || 16.1798 || 3.00 || 0.185416383 ||
 * || 21.0308 || 3.97 || 0.188770755 ||
 * || 25.921 || 4.37 || 0.168589175 ||
 * Average: ||  ||   || 0.181455372 ||
 * || Normal force || Kinetic (N) || Coefficient of friction ||
 * || 6.3994 || 1.40 || 0.21877051 ||
 * || 11.2994 || 1.83 || 0.161955502 ||
 * || 16.1798 || 2.63 || 0.162548363 ||
 * || 21.0308 || 3.4 || 0.161667649 ||
 * || 25.921 || 3.93 || 0.151614521 ||
 * Average: ||  ||   || 0.171311309 ||

Radians = degrees X (3.14 / 180) Radians = 10.00 X (3.14 / 180) Radians = 0.1744

Coefficient of friction = tan(radian) Coefficient of friction = tan(0.1744) Coefficient of friction = 0.1762

(for excel we needed to convert the degrees to radians in order to do tangent)


 * Static friction ||  ||   ||
 * trial || angle || radians || coefficient ||
 * 1 || 10.00 || 0.174444444 || 0.17623575 ||
 * 2 || 11.10 || 0.193633333 || 0.196090208 ||
 * 3 || 11.20 || 0.195377778 || 0.19790235 ||
 * 4 || 11.00 || 0.191888889 || 0.194279305 ||
 * 5 || 11.40 || 0.198866667 || 0.201530402 ||
 * 6 || 12.20 || 0.212822222 || 0.216094663 ||
 * 7 || 11.60 || 0.202355556 || 0.20516356 ||
 * 8 || 11.30 || 0.197122222 || 0.199715744 ||
 * 9 || 12.30 || 0.214566667 || 0.217921258 ||
 * average: || 11.34 || 0.197897531 || 0.200548138 ||


 * Kinetic friction ||  ||   ||
 * trial || angle || radians || coefficient ||
 * 1 || 10.00 || 0.174444444 || 0.17623575 ||
 * 2 || 9.70 || 0.169211111 || 0.170844798 ||
 * 3 || 9.90 || 0.1727 || 0.174437676 ||
 * 4 || 10.10 || 0.176188889 || 0.178034931 ||
 * 5 || 9.90 || 0.1727 || 0.174437676 ||
 * 6 || 9.50 || 0.165722222 || 0.1672562 ||
 * 7 || 10.10 || 0.176188889 || 0.178034931 ||
 * 8 || 10.20 || 0.177933333 || 0.179835229 ||
 * 9 || 10.10 || 0.176188889 || 0.178034931 ||
 * average: || 9.94 || 0.173475309 || 0.175239124 ||

Percent difference of slope vs. calculated (static): Percent difference of slope vs. calculated (kinetic): calculated the same way as static = 9.69%

1. Why does the slope of the line equal the coefficient of friction? Show this derivatio**n.** **The equation for friction is f = μN, where f=friction, μ is the coefficient of friction, and N=normal force. The lines in the graph are both linear, making their equation y=mx+b. f is on the y axis, and N is on the x axis, making f=mN equal to y=mx. Therefore the m variable must be μ.**
 * Discussion Questions:**

2. Look up the coefficient of friction between wood and aluminum. Discuss if your measured results fall within the range of theoretical values. Be sure to cite your source! **The coefficient of static friction between wood and clean metals is .2-.6. Our value for static friction was .1783, which is a little low but still close to the theoretical values.**
 * Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html**

3. What variables affected the magnitude of the force of friction? What variables affected the magnitude of the coefficient of friction? **The force of friction is affected by all the other forces acting on the system. Tension is the direct opposite of friction and inversely related. Therefore the speed and force with which the person pulled the robe affect the friction. The weight of the object affects the normal force, which is directly related to friction. The coefficient of friction is affected by the materials and the condition of the materials. We wiped our track with a damp cloth before using it, and therefore it was very smooth and clean. Any dirt particles could have interfered with our measurements, especially if they varied on different parts of the track.**

4. How does the value of coefficient of kinetic friction compare to the value for the same material’s coefficient of static friction?
 * The coefficient for friction is higher for static friction. Friction measures the resistance to motion and the coefficient of friction measures the interaction between the two surfaces. While the both surfaces are not moving they are demonstrating a large resistance between the two preventing sliding. When one of the surfaces is moving there is not as much resistance between the two surfaces allowing movement to occur.**

5. Did putting the track on an incline significantly change the coefficient of friction? Why or why not?
 * No, putting the track at an angle did not have a significant affect on the coefficient of friction. This is because the coefficient of friction measures the interaction between two surfaces and during the experiment the surfaces stayed the same.**

The goal of this lab was to determine the coefficient of friction between wood and aluminum, and to discover the coefficient of friction’s relationship with friction and normal force. We measured the static friction and kinetic friction on Data Studio, and used that information to find the coefficient of friction.
 * Conclusion and Error Analysis:**

In this lab there were several sources of error. The first is the person pulling the string attached to the block of wood. There are many sources of error in this one aspect of the lab. First off, we are assuming that the string is directly on the x axis, and although we tried to hold the string parallel to the table, it was not perfect. Second, the lab only works if we assume acceleration is zero. We tried to pull the string at a constant speed, but once again this was not perfect. Perhaps this area of error could be improved by having some sort of machine, like a little windup car, that would definitely go at constant speed and keep the string at a constant level pull the block of wood instead of a human hand.

=
Another source of error was the materials themselves. The track was wiped down prior to our lab, but it is possible that it was not perfectly even throughout, hence making the coefficient of friction different on different areas of the track. This could be improved by taking extra care to clean and inspect the track for any variations. ======

=
In the second part of the lab, the measurement reading was extremely subjective. We had to measure at what angle the speed was constant, and it is sometimes hard to determine what is constant and what might have a slight acceleration. Also, the person holding up the track may have also had shaking hands which makes the measurements harder to read and slightly less accurate. This is due to human error and is hard to avoid. ======

=
Knowing the coefficient of friction can be useful in life as well as in this experiment. For instance, if one were to pull a sled either across snow or across pavement, it would be helpful to know that on ice there is a lower coefficient of friction, which would make it easier to pull. Also, knowing that having a person in that sled would increase the weight, hence increasing the normal force of the sled on the ground, and since normal force is directly related to friction, having the friction increase as well, making it harder to pull the sled. Overall, this information and a solid understanding of friction and the coefficient of friction can be helpful in everyday life. ======

=

= = = =Lab: Newton's Second Law= DATE: 12/3/10
 * MEMBERS**: Deanna Magda, Maddy Huddleston, Scott Siegel


 * OBJECTIVE**: The objective of the lab was to derive the relationships between force, acceleration and mass using a dynamics cart attached to hanging weight, with the string connecting the two running through a pulley.

with Clamp, Base and Support rod, String, Mass hanger and mass set, Wooden or metal stopping block, Mass balance, level
 * AVAILABLE MATERIALS**: Dynamics Cart with Mass, Dynamics Cart, track, Photogate timer, Data studio, Super Pulley


 * HYPOTHESIS**: In completing this experiment, using Newton's Second Law, our group hypothesized that when the system's mass, acceleration, and net force are compared, there is going to be a direct relationship between the net force and acceleration, and an inverse relationship between the system mass and acceleration. This is supported by Newton's Second Law equation, F=ma.

1. Gather necessary materials. 2. Carefully choose efficient location to experiment. 3. Clamp the pulley to the edge of your table. 4. Place the track on the table, in line with the clamped pulley. 5. Make sure track is leveled, to prevent excess movement from the cart. 6. Create Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet to complete calculations. 7. Record the mass of the cart to account for later in the lab procedure. 8. Tie one end of a string to the cart, while the other is tied to hanging mass. 9. Hang the hanging mass over the pulley, making sure it is hanging below the edge of the table. 10. Make sure string runs through the wheel of the pulley, smoothly. 11. Plug the Photogate timer into your computer and the pulley. 12. Load Data Studio on your computer.
 * PROCEDURE:**
 * Preparation**:

1. Gather a certain amount of weight to experiment with. (50g) 2. Move the cart back to the beginning of the track. 3. Let go of the cart, and let the hanging mass accelerate the cart. 4. Record data on Data Studio. 5. Repeat steps 1-4 several times to acquire the most accurate data. 6. Locate the velocity vs. time graph on Data Studio. 7. Highlight the slope of the line, and locate the "linear fit box" for the line. 8. Record the values given in the equation in the Excel Spreadsheet. 9. Perform steps 1-8 multiple times, using varying masses for both the hanging mass and the cart. 10. Make sure to keep the total mass constant when repeating steps. (Move masses from the cart to the hanging mass)
 * Part A: Testing the Relationship Between Acceleration and Force.**

1. Place a large amount of weight onto the cart, and a small amount of weight onto the hanging mass. 2. Open up Data Studio on your computer, looking at the velocity vs. time graph of the experiment. 3. Move the cart to the beginning of the track. 4. Let go of the cart, and observe the hanging mass accelerate the cart, while Data Studio is formulating a velocity vs. time graph for the first trial. 5. Highlight the slope of the line on the velocity vs. time graph. 6. Locate the "linear fit" box, and record the values of the equation of the line in the Excel Spreadsheet. 7. Repeat steps 1-7 several times, until you notice consistent results. 8. Gradually take more weight off of the cart, leaving the weight of the hanging mass constant.
 * Part B: Testing the Relationship Between Acceleration and Mass**


 * DATA**:
 * Graph 1: || Data 1: ||
 * [[image:magda_force_vs_acc.png width="560" height="370"]] || [[image:magda_data_force_vs_acc.png width="452" height="377"]] ||
 * In the data, the labels 1st experiment, 2nd experiment, etc refer to the document the data was saved under because data studio only allowed a certain a number of runs per window; it is only for reference, in total there where four different trials with three individual runs each.

The slope of the trendline is about .590
 * Explanation**:
 * a. If linear: What is the slope of the trendline?**

The slope corresponds to the mass of the system, which is actually .544.
 * To what actual observed value does the slope correspond?**

The actual mass of the system is .544, which is close to .590. The percent error: %error= |experimental-theoretical| / theoretical X 100 %error= |.544-.590| / .590 X 100 %error=7.7967%
 * How does it compare to this actual observed value (find the percent error between the two)?**

Newton's second law equation is F=ma, and in our graph, force is on the y coordinate and acceleration is the x coordinate. If you apply this to the equation for a straight line, (y=mx+b), than m (slope) would be mass, since y is force and x is acceleration.
 * Show why the slope should be equal to this quantity.**

The y intercept is the friction. When acceleration is zero, force should be also, but our results show it to be .06473, which shows that friction is also acting on the cart.
 * What is the meaning of the y-intercept value?**

Graph 2:
 * Graph || Data ||
 * [[image:magda_curve_graph.png width="494" height="333"]] || [[image:magda_curve_data.png width="363" height="326"]] ||

Explanation: -2.5611
 * If non-linear: What is the power on the x?**

The power should be -1, because mass and acceleration are inversely related. Our exponent is very off, and before we did the fourth trial, the value was much closer to -1. However, the fourth trial provided us with a coefficient that was much closer to the actual value. The other graph without the fourth point can be found in our spreadsheet. Percent Error: %error= |experimental-theoretical| / theoretical X 100 %error= |-1-(-2.5611)| / -1 X 100 %error=161.1%
 * What should it be?**

.2795
 * What is the coefficient in front of the x?**

The coefficient is representative of the force, which would be the weight of the hanging object, in our case .294. (w=mg, w=.03(9.8), w=.294)
 * To what actual observed value does the coefficient correspond?**

%error= |experimental-theoretical| / theoretical X 100 %error= |.2795-.294| / .294 X 100 %error=4.93%
 * Find the percent error between the two.**

Newton's second law states that F=ma, and it can be rearranged to say acceleration= force X mass^-1 (like the equation of the graph, y=ax^b). This can be rewritten as acceleration = force / mass, or y=a/x. If y is acceleration and x the mass, than the coefficient has to be the force based on this equation.
 * Show why this value should be equal to this quantity.**

Link to spreadsheet:

For the first part of the experiment:
 * ANALYSIS cont**.:
 * What would friction do to your acceleration?**- Friction would slow the acceleration by acting in the opposite direction as the tension.
 * Would you need a bigger or smaller force to create the same acceleration?**- in order to obtain the same acceleration more force would be necessary. If the acceleration is slowed by friction that means we need to increase the acceleration. Force is directly related to the acceleration so as you increase the force you increase the acceleration.
 * Was your slope too big or too small?-** We ignored friction so our slope was smaller that it should have been. If friction was accounted for the acceleration would have been bigger because it would have to be equal to both the sum of the tension and friction.
 * Can friction be a source of error in this experiment? Redo the calculation of acceleration WITH friction to show its effect.**

T-f = ma 0.19 - 0.0647 =0.519a 0.1253 = .519a 0.2414 m/s^2 = a

For the second part of the experiment:



T-f = ma 2.5611 – 0.2795 = 2.978a 2.2816 = 2.978a 0.766 m/s^2 = a

Our objective for this lab was to determine the relationship between force, acceleration, and mass. The first part of our hypothesis was that the acceleration and force are directly related. Our graph was linear proving that they are indeed directly related. The equation for a linear graph is Y=mX+b. For this experiment the Y value was our force and the X value was the acceleration. The slope therefore was the mass of the total system being accelerated. (This could also be expressed as F=ma) Using our experimental acceleration and force we obtained a mass of .590 kg. Our actual mass of the system was .54 kg. Giving us only about a 7 percent error. The second part of our hypothesis was that acceleration is inversely related to mass. If they are inversely related the equation would be Y=AX^-n. This equation could be written a = Fm^-1 (acceleration = force times mass to the -1. This line is not linear proving that acceleration and mass are definitely not directly related but rather inversely related. To avoid error we had to wipe down the track to make decrease the amount of friction. If we did not wipe the track down properly friction could have made more of a difference. We tested to make sure the track was level by making sure the cart did not role when placed anywhere on the track. We looked to see that the string was parallel to the track however did not measure along at different points to make sure the string was parallel. Doing so would have further minimized error. Application of this lab is evident in any sort of moving with a pulley. It could also be applied to indoor rock climbing. In indoor rock climbing a person is attached to a harness. When the person is coming down from the top it is important that there is weight at the other end of the rope so that the person does not go flying down too fast.
 * CONCLUSION**:

[|inertialab.xls]

Lab: Inertia Mass Date: 11/19/10 Members: Deanna Magda, Scott Siegel, Maddy Huddleston

Objective: Find the mass of an object only using its inertia.

Available materials: For this lab we were able to use an Inertial balance, a 100, 200, 300 gram weight. (We made 400 gram and 500 gram weights using combinations of the former weights), a stopwatch, and a clamp.

Pictures of Set Up:
 * [[image:magda_inertia_1.jpg width="320" height="240"]] || [[image:magda_inertia_2.jpg width="320" height="240"]] || [[image:magda_inertia_3.jpg width="320" height="240"]] ||

Procedure:

The first step in finding the total mass of the Rubik’s Cube was to calibrate the Inertia Balance using several different masses. Our group decided to use five different masses in the calibration process: a 100g mass, a 200g mass, a 300g mass, a 400g mass, and a 500g mass. We had to find out the amount of time it takes for each mass to complete 10 vibrations. Once all of our data was completed, we entered it into an Excel Spreadsheet to help us achieve our average time per mass. Once the average times were calculated, we had to figure out the unknown mass of a Rubik’s Cube. We accomplished this by running five more trials with the Rubik’s Cube. We then found the average time of the Rubik’s Cube using several equations on our spreadsheet, and that allowed us to use another equation to find the average mass of the Rubik’s Cube.

Video Procedure: media type="file" key="magda inertia vid.mov" width="300" height="300"

Data collection and Calculations: Time (s) per period = time (s) from trial / # of periods = 4.44 / 10 = 0.444 seconds


 * trial # || periods || time (s) || (s) per period || mass grams ||
 * 1 || 10 || 4.44 || 0.444 || 100 ||
 * 2 || 10 || 4.2 || 0.42 || 100 ||
 * 3 || 10 || 4.2 || 0.42 || 100 ||
 * 4 || 10 || 4.28 || 0.428 || 100 ||
 * 5 || 10 || 4.32 || 0.432 || 100 ||
 * 6 || 10 || 5.9 || 0.59 || 200 ||
 * 7 || 10 || 5.56 || 0.556 || 200 ||
 * 8 || 10 || 5.51 || 0.551 || 200 ||
 * 9 || 10 || 5.36 || 0.536 || 200 ||
 * 10 || 10 || 5.46 || 0.546 || 200 ||
 * 11 || 10 || 6.95 || 0.695 || 300 ||
 * 12 || 10 || 6.41 || 0.641 || 300 ||
 * 13 || 10 || 6.33 || 0.633 || 300 ||
 * 14 || 10 || 6.54 || 0.654 || 300 ||
 * 15 || 10 || 6.42 || 0.642 || 300 ||
 * 16 || 10 || 7.45 || 0.745 || 400 ||
 * 17 || 10 || 7.65 || 0.765 || 400 ||
 * 18 || 10 || 7.31 || 0.731 || 400 ||
 * 19 || 10 || 7.97 || 0.797 || 400 ||
 * 20 || 10 || 7.76 || 0.776 || 400 ||
 * 21 || 10 || 9.19 || 0.919 || 500 ||
 * 22 || 10 || 8.84 || 0.884 || 500 ||
 * 23 || 10 || 8.62 || 0.862 || 500 ||
 * 24 || 10 || 8.79 || 0.879 || 500 ||
 * 25 || 10 || 8.71 || 0.871 || 500 ||

Rubik's Cube and calculations: Mass of Rubik’s cube = (882.31 X time per period) – 279.39 = (882.31 X 0.415) – 279.93 = 86.76865 grams

(We used the equation of the line found on the first graph to calculate the mass of the Rubik’s cube based on our trials)

Average time for Rubik’s cube = (sum of time per period) / # of trials = 2.193 / 5 = 0.4386 seconds

Average mass of Rubik’s cube = (882.31 X average time of Rubik’s cube) – 279.39 = (882.31 X 0.4386) – 279.39 = 107.591166 grams


 * trial # || periods || time (s) || (s) per period || mass grams ||
 * rubiks 1 || 10 || 4.15 || 0.415 || 86.76865 ||
 * rubiks 2 || 10 || 4.16 || 0.416 || 87.65096 ||
 * rubiks 3 || 10 || 4.46 || 0.446 || 114.12026 ||
 * rubiks 4 || 10 || 4.72 || 0.472 || 137.06032 ||
 * rubiks 5 || 10 || 4.44 || 0.444 || 112.35564 ||
 * ||  || average time of Rubiks: || 0.4386 || 107.591166 ||

Follow Up Questions: 1. Did gravitation play any part in this operation? Was this measurement process completely unrelated to the "weight" of the object? No, gravitation did not play any part in this operation. We know that an objects weight, not mass, is affected by gravity. Gravity does not affect the movement of the inertia balance as it moves horizontally, not vertically. Had the balance functioned vertically, gravity would have played a large role in our experiment.

2. Did an increase in mass lengthen or shorten the period of motion? An increased mass lengthened the period of motion.

3. How do the accelerations of different masses compare when the platform is pulled aside and released? The smaller the mass, the quicker the acceleration. The larger masses do not acceleration as fast.

4. Do you imagine that the period would have been different if the side arms were stiffer? Would this change lengthen or shorten the period of the motion? If the arms were stiffer the the period of motion would be shorter because the arms would not bend as much. If they do not bend as much, then are are not going as far and not taking as much time.

5. Is there any relationship between inertial and gravitational mass of the object? Yes, the more gravitational mass an object has, the greater its inertia.

6. Why do we almost always use gravitation instead of inertia as a means of measuring mass of an object? Gravity is much easier to measure since it is directly related to weight. It is much easier to weigh an object on a scale than use an inertia balance to measure its inertia.

7. How would the results of this experiment be changed if you did this experiment on the moon? It would be the same. Gravity has no impact on the horizontal moving inertia mass.

Percent Error and percent Difference:
 * [[image:magdade_%.png]] ||

Conclusion and Error Analysis:

In completing this lab, our group noticed several inevitable sources of error. Most of the error was by means of typical human error. For example, one major source of error was our poor reaction time when recording the amount of time that each mass took to complete a period. Another source of error was the inconsistency of our pushing the inertia balance. For each trial the amount of force that we put into pushing the balance altered, causing some of our results to be inaccurate. The last possible source of error was that the masses could have possibly shifted in the tray during the calibration process. Despite the possible sources of error, our final results make sense. We concluded that amount an object's mass is directly related to inertia.