Mini Lab #8

pdf

School

Texas A&M University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

201

Subject

Physics

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

4

Uploaded by PresidentKnowledge16163

Report
Laboratory Report: Lab Date: October 31, 2023 Experiment Title: Rotational Motion and Moment Inertia Course/Section #: PHYS 201-400 Station #: 11 Names of the people (who performed the experiment): Natalie Hesterman & Holly Pawlowski & Alejandro Mapula Names of the missing students: N/A TA’s Name: Mahmodul Maheen Lab Partners: Natalie Hesterman & Holly Pawlowski & Alejandro Mapula
Introduction: In this experiment, we studied the relationship between the torque and the angular acceleration as described by Newton's Second law of rotational motion. In the two previous labs, we studied transitional motion where the acceleration and the force are in the same direction as the motion’s direction, which leads to linear motion. In this case, the force was not in the same direction as the motion, which gives rise to the idea of rotational motion. In this lab, we completed two activities. In both of these activities, we used a Verinir Rotary Sensor to measure the angular displacement, the LoggerPro Mini Quest, a spindle/screw to attach Disk “A” to the three-step pulley, a three-step pulley, a ring stand, a balance, a lightweight mass hanger, masses, and a string. For this experiment, we familiarized ourselves with two equations: 1. t=Ia 2. I(m)=I(0)+I(p)+m*R(s)^2 Results: Table 1. Disk "A" Disk "B" Mass (M) 105 g 107 g Disk's Radius (R) 4.5 cm 4.5 cm Moment of Inertia of a disk: I(0)=1/2MR^2 1.063e^-4 1.08e^-4 Table 1 shows the masses of each disk from the rotary motion sensor, along with the disk’s radius and the moment of inertia of each disk. Table 2. Summary of the measured values Case #1: (25g) Case #2: (55g) Case #3: (105g) Case #4: (55g) Case #5: (105g) Angular Acceleration a(rad/s^2) 47.85 92.4 146.8 52.51 88.82 Tourque= MhgR^m_s 0.006125 0.013475 0.025725 0.013475 0.025725 I_m=Tourque/a 1.28e^-4 1.46e^-4 1.75e^-4 2.57e^-4 2.90e^-4 Table 2 shows 5 different case trials with different pulley masses. It shows the angular acceleration, the torque value along with the moment of inertia. Table 3. Summary of measured and calculated values of moment inertia Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Case #4 Case #5 Measured Moment of Inertia (I_m) 1.28e^-4 1.46e^-4 1.75e^-4 2.57e^-4 2.90e^-4 Calculated Moment of Inertia (I_c) 1.23e^-4 1.426e^-4 1.739e^-4 2.51e^-4 2.82e^-4 Table 3 highlights each of the 5 case trials along with their measured moment of inertia and the calculated moment of inertia.
Discussions/Conclusions: 1. Calculate the percent difference between the measured and the calculated values of the moment of inertia and fill out Table 4. Table 4. Percent Difference Case #1 Case #2 Case #3 Case #4 Case #5 Accuracy= (1-|(I_m-I_c)/(I_c)| 95.93% 97.62% 99.38% 97.61% 97.16% 2. Are the results from Table 4 expected and why? I believe the results from Table 4 are expected due to how accurately we performed our experiment and collected our data. When doing the equations we were given in the introduction, we made sure there were no calculation errors. Furthermore, as you can see in Table 4, there were some sources of error, however, these results were still very accurate. 3. Compare the results of cases 1, 2, and 3. When comparing the results of cases 1, 2, and 3 you can see that the amount of mass on the pulley hanger was different which caused an increase in the data between the trials. In case 1, the hanging mass was 25g. In case 2, the hanging mass was 55g. In case 3, the hanging mass was 105g. This led to an increase of data for the angular acceleration and a scatter of torque values. On the other hand, our moment of inertia increased a ton. 4. Compare the results of cases 4 and 5. When comparing the results for cases 4 and 5 there was also a difference in the hanging masses on the pulley system. In case 4, the hanging mass was 55g while in case 5 it was 105g. As you can see in Table 1, the angular acceleration values increased along with the torque values. Even more so there was a large increase in the moment of inertia. 5. Make a detailed comparison between the results of cases 3 and 5. When comparing the results for case 3 and case 5 there was a constant hanging mass on the pulley system (105g). However, in case 3, the angular acceleration was much greater than the value for case 5. Furthermore, the torque values were the same. Lastly, the moment of inertia was much greater in case 5 than in case 3. In Table 4, you can see that case 3 was the most accurate data we collected. 6. What is the conclusion you come up with, from the five cases? The conclusion that I came up with from all five cases was that the case with the lowest hanging mass (case 1;25g) had the smallest values for angular acceleration, torque, and moment of inertia. From looking at Table 1, the greater the hanging mass is there will be the increase in the data values for each category. 7. What are the possible reasons for the differences if there are any? Possible reasons for the differences in the percent accuracy in Table 4 could be due to the way we ran each case trial in the experiment. In this lab, we could have made many simple errors when collecting our data. One main reason could be when we let the
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
hanging mass go off the table. This sometimes resulted in a large impact on the ground and it could account for the errors. In conclusion, we feel that this lab taught us a lot about the moment of inertia, which is very useful in today’s world. We were able to learn more about Newton’s Second Law and familiarize ourselves with how to calculate moments of inertia via equations. Our results above seem to be pretty accurate, however, we feel that some reasons for errors could have been due to the realization of the hanging mass on the pulley, which could have led to some data collection errors.