OBJECTIVES

In this experiment, the students are expected to determine the resultant of three given forces

using graphical method, component method, and force table.​

INTRODUCTION

​ Most of the physical quantities we deal with on a day-to-day basis can be described by a

single number, like temperature, speed, cost, weight, height, etc. Though, there are a large

number of other ideas we encounter on an everyday basis that cannot be described by a single

number. For instance, a meteorologist will report wind conditions in terms of its speed and

direction. When using force, we must take the magnitude and direction of the force into account.

In each of these cases, the direction aspect is crucial. Hence, the need to study vectors.

​ Physical quantities can be classified as either scalar or vector. While scalar quantity relies

solely on the magnitude, vector quantity takes account of the direction. Scalar quantities can be

added just by using algebraic addition, considering only the given unit. On the other hand, the

sum of vector quantities, which is called the resultant vector, can be determined by using

analytical method (accurate) , graphical method (approximate) , or through the use of a force

table (approximate).

MATERIALS​

​ 1. Force Table​

​ 2. Weight Holders​

​ 3. Set of masses​

​ 4. Graphical paper​
​ 5. Ruler​

​ 6. Pencil​

​ 7. Protractor

EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP

1.​ Each group is assigned a set of three vectors, labeled as F1, F2 & F3. Use the equation

F=mg, where g=980 cm/s2.

2.​ Set up the three given forces as shown in the set up and determine experimentally their

equilibrant. The weight of the hanger must be included in the forces applied to the

strings. Reduce the effect of friction by displacing the central ring slightly in various

directions and observe its return. (Make it sure that the strings and the ring are not

touching the force table.

3.​ Using the same three forces, determine the resultant by graphical and component method.

4.​ Evaluate the resultants of the graphical and the force table by getting the percentage error

of the two methods taking the resultant of the component method as the standard value.
DOCUMENTATION

DATA

VECTOR MAGNITUDE (Dynes) DIRECTION

F1 (55 g) 53,900 W

F2 (80 g) 78,400 N

F3 (105 g) 102,000 E

Equilibrant (Force Table) 94,080 62° W OF S

Resultant (Graphical Method) 9.2 UNITS 58° E OF N

Resultant (Component Method) 92453.02 57.99° E OF N

&Error (Force Table and Component 1.76% 6.91%

Method)

&Error (Graphical Method and 0.54% 0.02%

Component Method)

COMPUTATION

Magnitude To Dynes

F1 55g, West 53,900 =(55g)(980)

F2 80g, North 78,400 =(80g)(980)

F3 105g, East 102,900 =(105g)(980)

Component Method

X-Components Y-Components

A⃑ F1= 53 900 ,180⁰ Ax=(53 900)cos(180⁰)= -53 900 Ay=(53 900)sin(180⁰)= 0

B⃑ F2= 78 400 ,90⁰ Bx=(78 400)cos(90⁰)= 0 By=(78 400)sin(90⁰)= 78 400

C⃑ F3= 102 900 ,0⁰ Cx=(102 900)cos(0⁰)= 102 900 Cy=(102 900)sin(0⁰)= 0

X ̂=49 000 Y ̂= 78 400

R=49 000x ̂+78 000y ̂

78 000
ϴ=tan-1( 49 000 )

2 2
R ⃑= (𝑅𝑥) + (𝑅𝑦) ​

2 2
R ⃑= (49 000) + (78 000) ​

R ⃑=92 453.02

%Error (Force Table & Component Method)​ ​ ​ Direction​

92 453.02−94 080 57.99−62

57.99−58
%Error (Graphical Method & Component Method)​ ​ ( 57.99
)(100%) = 0.02%​

9.25−9.2
%Error=( 9.25
)(100%) = 0.54%​

ANALYSIS

Based on the results that we have gathered from the force table method, graphical

method, and component method, there is not much of a difference between their values. As

shown in the table of values above, the force table and component method showed a 1.76%

difference in magnitude and a slightly huge percentage error of 6.91% in direction. This implies

that there were experimental errors in angle measurements. On the other hand, the force table

and component method depict a 0.64% magnitude error and a 0.02% directional error, which

then indicates that the graphical method gives us more accurate measurements and values.
 Furthermore, the equilibrant force of 94,080 dynes, 62° W of S, is equal in magnitude but

opposite in direction compared to the resultant which is, 94,080 dynes, 62° E of N. These data

and results greatly confirm Newton’s First Law of Motion, or the Law of Inertia, which states

that an object will remain at rest unless acted by an external force. Based on the experiment, the

force table showed that when the equilibrant force counterbalanced the resultant force, the

system will remain stable, which proves that there is no net force acting on the system, thereby

proving Newton’s First Law.

CONCLUSION

​ Our experiment showed that different ways of finding a resultant force, like using

graphical, component, and force table methods give similar results, with small differences due to

measurement inaccuracies. The graphical and component methods gave the most accurate

values, serving as the basis for error calculations. Notably, the force table introduced small

directional inconsistencies, which could be due to external errors.