Report for Experiment #5

Uniform Circular Motion

Noah Hamlen
Lab Partner: Martin Caruso
TA: James Grammatikos
2/7/2016

Abstract
In this experiment, a plumb bob was spun around a central post with an elastic linkage to the post to
provide centrifugal force. This force was measured, as was the velocity of the bob. This, along with the
mass of the bob and the radius of the circular path was used to check the verity of the centrifugal force
F m
equation: = . The value of mass divided by radius came out to be 2.75 kg/m, and the slope of
V2 r
force divided by velocity squared across the trials equaled 2.59 0.24 kg/m, proving the centrifugal force
equation.Introduction
This investigation was performed in order to demonstrate the relationship between centripetal force
and velocity. In order to do so, the force required from a spring in order to maintain circular motion in the
experimental apparatus was measured using a counterweight system. After that, the velocity of the
apparatus was measured when the centripetal force precisely matched that measured previously, and
afterwards, the velocity was squared, and the centripetal force was graphed against both the velocity and
the velocity squared. The final value, justifying the entire experiment, was the slope of the plot of
centripetal force versus velocity squared. With this found, it can be found whether the ratio of the
measured values for the mass of the bob and the radius of the circle match the slope, as in the equation:
F m
= .
V2 r

Investigation 1
To set this experiment up, the Sargent-Welsh apparatus had to have several adjustments made. The
first of these was leveling the base, such that when the arm was released from any position, it would
remain stationary. The second was adjusting the radius of the circle, to be within a reasonable distance for
the rubber band to reach. The third, and final, step was to adjust the counterweight to balance the arms
rotation. After that, the radius of the circle and mass of the bob were measured.
After setting up the apparatus, a rubber band was hooked onto the central post on one end, and the
bob on the other. This pulled the bob toward the post. After that, a bucket was tied to the bob over the
apparatuss pulley, and washers were added to it until the bob was pulled back to its rest position. At this
point, washers were added to the bucket until it was pulled beyond its rest position. These washers were
then removed, and the mass of the bucket with all the washers measured, and then the mass of the extra
washers measured, as the error. After measuring this, the apparatus was spun until it reached a velocity
such that the bob was directly over the calibration post. At this point, the time for it to make a revolution
was measured three times. The above steps were repeated five more times, with springs of varying
strength in the place of the rubber band.
In table 1 below, the data from the trials, the constant mass of the bob, and the constant radius of the
circle can be found.
 Table 1 Centripetal force, time, and velocity measurements (with respective error)
of the plumb bob.
mass (kg) radius (m) M (kg) 0.2302 0.5033 0.1128 0.4028 0.2056 0.2486
1 6
0.45653 0.166 error M (kg) 0.015 0.0042 0.0014 0.0180 0.0042 0.0039
4
Mass Error of Centripetal 2.26 4.93 1.11 3.95 2.01 2.44
Error (kg) radius (m) Force (N)
0.000005 0.0005 Error F (N) 0.1470 0.0412 0.0137 0.1768 0.0408 0.0381
g M/r # of Revs 1 2 1 1 1 1
9.81 2.750181 t1 (s) 1.17 1.67 1.93 0.91 1.15 1.17
t2 (s) 1.18 1.69 1.96 0.82 1.13 1.2
t3 (s) 1.22 1.71 2.02 0.9 1.15 1.16
average t (s) 1.19 1.69 1.97 0.88 1.14 1.18
error t (s) 0.0200 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
period T (s) 1.19 0.85 1.97 0.88 1.14 1.18
error T (s) 0.0200 0.0500 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
v (m/s) 0.876 1.234 0.529 1.185 0.914 0.883
error v (m/s) 0.0150 0.0731 0.0269 0.1347 0.0803 0.0749
2
v (m/s) 0.767 1.522 0.280 1.403 0.836 0.780
2 2
error v (m/s) 0.0262 0.1803 0.0284 0.3190 0.1467 0.1323
1 5 8 6 9 7

To calculate centripetal force, the mass of the counterweight was multiplied by 9.8, as in the equation:
F=ma . To calculate period, T, the average time measured was divided by the number of revolutions
2 r
being timed. To calculate velocity, the velocity formula V= was used. V2 was calculated by
T
simply squaring V.
M was calculated by measuring the number of washers required to offset the bob in the bucket,
and F was calculated by multiplying M by 9.8, the same constant that M was multiplied by. To calculate
the error in the bobs mass, the smallest increment on the scale was divided by 2, and likewise, to
calculate the error in the radius, the smallest increment on the ruler was divided by 2. To calculate the
error in time, the method of measurement was taken into account, and the error was estimated, as
instructed in class. The reason for trial 1s estimated error being so low is the fact that a slow motion
video was used to examine the time, while the others were done by eye. The error in period was
determined by dividing the error in time by the number of revolutions, which in all trials but number 2,
was 1. To calculate the error in V, Eq. 1 below was used. While the error in r was small enough to be
negligible, it was still used in the calculation.

V
V
=
T
T 2 r 2
+
r
(1)

To calculate the error in V2, Eq. 2 below was used.

The data in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 below had to be plotted in order to examine two things: the linear
dependence of the two graphs, and the slope of the second one.

F vs. v

f(x) = 5.2x - 2.09

Figure 1 Centrifugal force of the bob versus the tangential velocity.

F vs. V^2

f(x) = 2.96x + 0.02

Figure 2 Centrifugal force of the bob versus the tangential velocity squared.

From the graph, it can be seen that V and F are not linearly dependent, but V 2 and F are. This is in line
with Eq. 3 below.
 2
mV
F= (3)
r
In fact, Fig. 1 follows a nearly perfect quadratic correlation, which, again, is in line with Eq. 3. The
F m
slope of Fig. 2 is equal to 2 , and should, in theory, equal .
V r
To calculate the uncertainty in the slope, the IPL calculator was used. This gave the value of the slope
of Fig. 2 to be 2.59 0.24 kg/m. As was shown in Eq. 3, the ratio of force to velocity squared should be
equal to the ratio of mass to the radius, which equaled 2.75 kg/m. The measured value was within error.
Conclusion

This experiment was done to verify the existence of centrifugal force, and to prove the equation
mV 2 F m
F= . In finding that = , the equation was empirically validated. One of the major
r V
2
r
problems encountered was in the measurement of velocity. It was very difficult to determine exactly when
the bob was rotating was revolving directly above the calibration post. The use of slow motion helped to
eliminate this problem in the first trial, but it took too much time to be viable across all trials. Given more
time, it could have been used every time to get an even more precise result, both in radius of rotation and
time, since it allows one to see the exact second that the bob crosses the post on each rotation.
Questions
F
1. Given that the unit for force, Newtons, is mass times acceleration, the expression: can be
V2
kgm/s 2
rewritten in terms of units as . This cancels to kg/m, the unit of the slope.
m 2 /s 2
2. If the bob is not moving, there is no centripetal force holding it to its circular path.
3. The marble will follow path B. It will do so because it no longer has a centrifugal force, the
copper tubing, acting on it. With no more centripetal force, it will follow a path tangent to the last
point at which it still had a centripetal force acting on it.

4. Given that
F V2
=
m R
and
V 2
V
2
=2
V
V
, the error in
F
m
is equal to
( 2
V 2 m 2 .
V ) +
m
Plugging the given errors into this equation, the error of force over mass is found to be 2.24%.
5. The radius must be increased fourfold, since they have an exponential relationship.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my TA, James Grammatikos, for his helpful hints and instructions in class, and
my partner, Martin Caruso, for his great help in conducting the investigation and setting up the slow
motion capture.