Alissa Castano- PHYS 1P91 Lab 2

TABLES: UNIT VALUE UNCERTAINTY Average Position (entire trial) m 0.1 ± 0.1 Average Position (1-2 sec) m 0.02 ± 0.04 Average Position (3-4 sec) m 0.08 ± 0.04 UNIT VALUE UNCERTAINTY Acceleration (a x ) m/s 2 0.02 ± 0.01 Acceleration (your chosen direction) m/s 2 9.79 ± 0.02 UNIT VALUE UNCERTAINTY Weight Of Calibration Mass (iolab) N 0.983 ± 0.008 UNIT VALUE UNCERTAINTY Mass Object 1 (stated) g 20 N/A Weight Object 1 (iolab) N 0.193 ± 0.002 Expected weight object 1 (calculated) N 0.196 N/A Mass Object 2 (stated) g 50 N/A Weight Object 2 (iolab) N 0.492 ± 0.005 Expected weight object 2 (calculated) N 0.49 N/A Weight Object 2 (small interval) (iolab) N 0.492 ± 0.004 FIGURES:

Figure 1: Average time and position of the whole trial. Figure 2:Average time and position at a 1-2 second interval.

Figure 5: Force of object 1 Figure 6: Force of object 2.

DISCUSSION: ● Are the average value and uncertainty for the whole trial equal to the average value and uncertainty from the 1-2 second time window and the 3-4 second time window. Would you expect them to be? Why or why not. As visible in figure 1, the values obtained suggest that there is a difference between the average value of the trial, the 1-2 second trial, as well as the 3-4 second trial. The average value for the entire trial was 0.1 ± 0.1 m with a range of 0.0 m to 0.2 m. The value for the 1-2 second trial was 0.02 ± 0.04 m with an acceptable range of -0.02m to 0.06 m. The value for the 3-4 second trial was 0.08 ± 0.04 m with an acceptable range of 0.04 m to 0.12 m. The average positions and uncertainty are not equal between the entire trial and the individual time windows. These results are expected as different time windows represent specific behaviours within the entire trial, smaller windows capture different segments from the whole trial. This leads to differences and slight overlaps between time frames. ● Is this value (the first attempt at acceleration – table 2) ±9.8 m/s2 why or why not? No, the value acquired for the first attempt at acceleration was not ±9.8 m/s 2 , but a value close to 0, because of the orientation of the measurement. For this trial, the acceleration was taken on the horizontal (x) axis of the iOlab, making the effect of the gravity minimal on the iOlab. This happens because the gravity, which acts in a downward vertical motion at an acceleration of ±9.8 m/s 2 , is acting perpendicularly to the position of the iOlab. Therefore, gravity is not primarily influencing the measurement, resulting in a value of 0.02 ± 0.01 m/s 2 . ● Is this value (second attempt at acceleration -table 2) ±9.8m/s2? Yes, the value obtained for the second attempt at acceleration was ±9.8 m/s 2 (9.79 ± 0.02 m/s 2 ). For this trial, the acceleration was taken on the vertical (y) axis of the iOlab, allowing gravity to act on it. This is due to acceleration from gravity acting on a vertical axis, or parallel to the orientation of the iOlab. Because the acceleration due to gravity on earth is ±9.8 m/s 2 , this resulted in a value of 9.79 ± 0.02 m/s 2 . ● Is the value (weight of calibration mass) within uncertainty of the expected value? The expected value of the weight of the calibration mass was 0.98N with an uncertainty of ±0.1N, which was found using the mass of the weight (0.1kg) and the gravity (9.8 m/s 2 ). The range of the expected value was determined to be 0.88 to 1.08. The value obtained for the weight of the calibration mass was 0.983 ±0.008 N, with a range from 0.975 to 0.991. The values of the obtained value are within the range of the expected value, therefore the values agree. ● Is the expected weight (object 1) within uncertainty of weight recorded by the iolab?