Centripetal Motion Lab Report

Victoria Mazilu

Data Collected with Mathieu Desroches and Jimmy Yang Yao

SPH4U1-1

Ms. Lew

October 12, 2022

1
 Part A:
Purpose
Determine the effect of centripetal force on frequency while the rotating mass, and radius
are kept constant.

Hypothesis
When the radius and rotating mass remain constant, increasing the centripetal force will
cause the frequency to increase.

Data
Hanging Mass, mH, Number of Time, t, (s) Radius, r, Rotating Mass, mR,
(kg) Rotations (m) (Number of rubber stoppers)

0.02 12

0.05 18
15 0.75 1
0.10 24

0.20 28

0.30 38

Calculations
FBD of the System

2
 Hanging Mass, mH, (kg) Centripetal Force, Fc, (N) Frequency, f, (Hz)

0.02 Fc = mg *See above for proof f=

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
= (0.02kg)(9.81N/kg) 12 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
=
=0.20 15 𝑠
= 0.80

0.05 0.49 1.20

0.10 0.98 1.60

0.20 1.96 2.00

0.30 2.94 2.50

Graphing/Linearizing

Frequency, f, (Hz) Centripetal Force, Fc, (N) Root of Centripetal Force, 𝐹𝑐, (N)

0.8 0.20 0.5

1.2 0.49 0.8

1.6 0.98 1.1

2.0 1.96 1.4

2.4 2.94 1.8

Rotating Mass Calculations*See analysis for importance

Centripetal Radius, r, (m) Frequency, f, Rotating Mass, mR, (kg)

Force, Fc, (N) (Hz)
Fc = 4π2mrf2
𝐹𝑐
∴m= 4π 𝑟𝑓

0.20 0.80 =
0.20
= 0.011
4(3.14) (0.75)(0.80)

0.49 1.20 0.012

0.98 0.75 1.60 0.013

1.96 2.00 0.016

2.94 2.50 0.016

3
Graphs

4
5
 Part B:
Purpose
Determine the effect of centripetal force on the rotating mass while the frequency, and
radius are kept constant.
Hypothesis
When the frequency and radius remain constant, you can see that the centripetal force and
rotating mass are dependent on each other.

Data
Hanging Mass, Rotating Mass, mR, (number Number of Time, t, (s) Radius, r,
mH, (kg) of rubber stoppers) Rotations (m)

0.1 1 24
15 0.75
0.2 2 24

Calculations
Centripetal Force, Fc, (N) Frequency, f, (Hz)
Hanging Mass (kg)
Fc = mg f=
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

Fc = mg f=
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
= (0.10kg) 24 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
0.10 =
(9.81N/kg) 15 𝑠

= 0.98 = 2.0

0.20 1.96 2.0

Rotating Mass Calculations*See analysis for importance

Centripetal Radius, r, (m) Frequency, f, Rotating Mass, mR, (kg)

Force, Fc, (N) (Hz)
Fc = 4π2mrf2
𝐹𝑐
∴m= 4π 𝑟𝑓

0.98 =
0.98
4(3.14) (0.75)(1.6)
= 0.013
0.75 1.6
1.96 0.026

*No graphs necessary

6
 Part C:
Purpose
Determine the effect of radius on frequency while the rotating mass, and centripetal force
are kept constant.
Hypothesis
When the centripetal force and rotating mass remain constant, increasing the radius will
cause the frequency to decrease.
Data
Radius, r, (m) Number of Time (s) Hanging Mass Rotating Mass
Rotations (kg) (Number of rubber stoppers)

0.45 33

0.60 26
15 0.10 1
0.75 24

0.90 22

1.05 20

Calculations
Hanging Mass (kg) Centripetal Force, Fc, (N) Frequency, f, (Hz)

Fc = mg (See Part A Calculations for proof) f=

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

0.02 Fc = mg f=
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
= (0.02kg)(9.81N/kg) 12 𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
=
=0.20 15 𝑠
= 0.80

0.05 0.49 1.2

0.10 0.98 1.6

0.20 1.96 2.0

0.30 2.94 2.5

7
 Graphing/Linearizing

Frequency, f, (Hz) Radius, r, (m) Reciprocal of Radius,

1
, (m)
𝑟
*From Line of Best Fit values

0.8 0.20 2.22

1.2 0.49 1.54

1.6 0.98 1.33

2.0 1.96 1.14

2.4 2.94 0.95

Rotating Mass Calculations

*See analysis for importance

Centripetal Radius, r, Frequency, f, Rotating Mass, mR, (kg)

Force, Fc, (m) (Hz)
(N) Fc = 4π2mrf2
𝐹𝑐
∴m= 4π 𝑟𝑓

0.98
= 4(3.14) (0.45)(2.2)
0.45 2.2
= 0.012
0.98 0.60 1.73 0.014

0.75 1.60 0.013

0.90 1.46 0.013

1.05 1.33 0.013

8
Graphs

9
10
 Analysis
Trends and Proportionality
Part A:
y = mx + b
Point 1: (0.1, 0.3) and Point 2: (0.8, 1.2)
𝑦2 − 𝑦1 (1.2) − (0.3) 0.9
m= 𝑥2 − 𝑥1
= (0.8) − (0.1)
= 0.7
≈ 1.29
∴ m = 1.29 ± 0.005
b ≈ 0. 18 ± 0.005
When analyzing the graphs it can be seen that frequency is proportional the root of
centripetal force, or f ∝ 𝐹𝑐
f = 𝑘 𝐹𝑐 + 𝑏
f = (1. 29 ± 0. 005) 𝐹𝑐 + (0.18 ± 0.005)
f = (1. 29 ± 0. 38%) 𝐹𝑐 + (0.18 ± 2.78%)
∴ f = (1. 29𝐻𝑧/𝑁) 𝐹𝑐 + (0.18Hz) ± 3.16%

Part B:
My hypothesis predicts that the hanging mass and rotating mass are dependent on each
other. However, the data collected is inconclusive since the relationship cannot be defined by two
points.
Nevertheless, the two points collected follow the same frequency. This fact leads me to
believe that the variables are directly proportional to one another, or mR ∝ mH or mR ∝ Fc.
Expanding on this fact, the two variables would be dependent on each other. If the hanging mass
was far greater than the rotating mass, or vise versa, the system would ultimately fall apart.

Part C:
y = mx + b
Point 1: (0.3, 0.9) and Point 2: (0.9, 1.3)
𝑦2 − 𝑦1 (1.3) − (0.9) 0.4
m= 𝑥2 − 𝑥1
= (0.9) − (0.3)
= 0.6
≈ 0.67
∴ m = 0.67 ± 0.005
b ≈ 0. 70 ± 0.005
When analyzing the graphs it can be seen that frequency is inversely proportional the
1
radius, or f ∝ 𝑟
.
𝑘
f= 𝑟
+ 𝑏
(0.67 ± 0.005)
f= 𝑟
+ (0.70 ± 0.005)
(0.67 ± 0.75%)
f= 𝑟
+ (0.70 ± 0.71%)
(0.67𝐻𝑧/𝑁)
∴ f= 𝑟
+ (0.70Hz) ± 1.46%

11
Analyzing Values and Parameters
The slope of the linearized relationship, m, represents the amount of hertz per newton in
the data point. The slope also illustrates that the frequency and reciprocal of the radius have a
positive linear relationship, and proves that as the reciprocal of the radius increases, the
frequency will increase as well.
In addition, the y-intercept, b, represents the source of error from friction and the lost
force. A calculated amount, ‘b,’ must be added to compensate for the friction and thermal energy
loss that was not accounted for throughout the experiment.

Rotating Mass Parameter

In Relation to Fundamental Constants and Systematic Errors

Testing Greatest Percent Difference for Each Section using Rotating Mass

Part A:
The value of 0.012kg was the lowest mass
found, and 0.014kg was the highest mass found |(0.012) − (0.014)|
=( (0.012) + (0.014) )(100)
using the data. By using the lowest and highest 2

values we can calculate the greatest percent =(

|−0.002|
)(100)
0.0125
difference to understand the precision of each data
= 16%
point.

Part B:
Does not apply since the rotating mass is not constant in this section, therefore the difference in
values will not represent any systematic errors.

Part C: =(
|(0.012) − (0.016)|
(0.012) + (0.016) )(100)
The value of 0.012kg was the lowest mass 2
|−0.004|
found, and 0.016kg was the highest mass found =( 0.014
)(100)
using the data. By using the lowest and highest 0.004
=( )(100)
values we can calculate the greatest percent 0.014

difference to understand the precision of the data = 29%

point.

Explanation
All variables are collected in Part A and Part C except the rotating mass, which is a
constant. Since there are no known values to measure any unknowns against, we can compare
the calculated value of the rotating mass from one point to another. We can use this knowledge
and new data to analyze the percent difference. Given that the value should be constant, this will
show the precision of the points.

12
 This part of the analysis was used as a way to quantify the main sources of error, as well
as the relationship between a control variable and physics constants, and explore the meaning of
the value of rotating mass.

Discussion
Errors
Overall, the experimental design is judged to be adequate. I believe that there were two
significant sources of error throughout the lab.
Beginning with procedural errors, I encountered two main ones: the rotations not being
completely horizontal, and the 3.0cm buffer between the glass tube and butterfly clip not
remaining completely stationary. When conducting the lab, it was difficult to keep the system
entirely horizontal and it would often begin to rotate at a different angle, or slightly fall due to
gravity. The change in angle causes the potential energy to be altered at different parts of the
rotations, causing the kinetic energy to constantly change slightly. Subsequently, the rotating
mass would pull at different amounts on the hanging mass. This caused the butterfly clip to move
closer and away from the glass tube throughout the rotations.
I also noticed a systematic error through the graphs in Part A and Part B, the forces of
friction were not taken into account as well as the small force of gravity that would pull the rope
slightly to fall. Throughout all rotations, the rope slides around the circumference of the glass
tube, creating friction, which I believe slowed the frequency to a certain extent. As well as
gravity pulling the string to fall would have caused the radius to be slightly smaller than the
measured radius.

Errors Effect on Data

Although these errors are difficult to resolve and my data was not completely
unjustifiable, I believe that they would result in significantly better results. The experimentally
calculated rotating mass values in the Analysis could be more precise as they deviated from each
other up to 29% in Part C. Moreover, ignoring the force of friction in the experiment slightly
affected by data as well. This caused a y-intercept in both Part A and Part C, instead of
intercepting through the origin. The y-intercept means that for each point, you must add ‘b,’ in
order to render the friction.

Errors Effect on Conclusions

Analyzing the overall trends, the errors did not affect my overall conclusions and they are
still definitive. Although the collected data points may not have been as accurate and precise and
expected, the overall relationships, graphs, and data are still decisive. The linear graphs in Part A
and C are clearly proportional and the plotted points are conclusive. The value for the rotating
masses in Part B followed the 1:2 ratio from the number of rubber stoppers and I could conclude
that the points were precise.

13
 Conclusions
Although my results are not outstanding, my data still clearly supported my hypothesis.
Firstly, Whilst maintaining the radius and rotating mass constant, increasing the centripetal force
caused the frequency to increase. This can be seen in Part A when f ∝ 𝐹𝑐. Secondly, I found
that when the frequency and radius remain constant, the centripetal force and rotating mass are
presumably dependent on each other, expressed through mR ∝ Fc. And my final conclusion was
that when the centripetal force and rotating mass remain constant, increasing the radius will
1
cause the frequency to decrease, or f ∝ 𝑟
.
My conclusions were limited by lack of trials and data points as well as notable. To
improve upon the results, multiple trials should be conducted for each point, then averaged, and
more points should have been collected in Part B in order to have a strong and supported finding.
In addition, both procedural and systematic errors should be averted, if and when possible.

References

Hirsch, A. J. (2003). Nelson Physics 12. Nelson Thomson Learning.

14