PHYSICS SAC 3, UNIT 3

Circular Motion Investigation Report - Alex Cox

Introduction
The aim of this investigation was to design an experiment that would allow me to
prove the formula

F=

mv 2
r

for a body moving in a uniform circle.

Methods and Materials

Everything used in the designed experiment is as follows:
Equipment / Material
Measuring Tape
Stopwatch (Phone)
Slotted Masses and
Stand
Twine, Tube and Clip
Rubber Stopper
Computer / Paper
Scale

Purpose / Notes
Measure radius (metres)
Measure period
(seconds)
Provide weight force
Circular Motion kit
Mass in motion
(kilograms)
Record and format
results
Weigh masses
(kilograms)

Our experiment was conducted in the following order:

1. The scale was used to measure the weights of the slotted mass stand,
slotted masses and rubber stopper.
2. The circular motion kit, rubber stopper and slotted mass stand were set up
as such:

3. The radius (metres) was recorded.

4. The tube was held firmly and the rubber stopper was spun around in a
circle steadily so that the clip was closely below the tube.

5. We then recorded the time taken for the stopper to complete 10

revolutions.
6. The mass hung under the kit was varied three times (i.e.: 50g, 100g and
200g) and step 5 was repeated.
7. The radius was changed and steps 2 to 6 were repeated.
8. From our results, centripetal force (Newtons), weight force (Newtons),
period (seconds), stopper velocity (metres per second) and stopper
acceleration (Newtons per kilogram) were calculated.
Results
For this experiment, I estimated that the stopper
travels at a distance of 0.075R (4.30) below the
horizontal. (7.5cm for every 100cm)
The radius of motion could then be estimated by

r=

0.075
tan 4.30 , where r is the radius of motion and R

is the measured length of twine.

The tangential velocity of the stopper could then be calculated with the following

equation

2 r
T

, where v is the velocity in metres per second and T is the

period in seconds.
Using the velocity from the previous equation, centripetal
force was calculated according to the equation

Fc =

m v2
r ,

where Fc is the centripetal force in Newtons and m is the

mass of the rubber stopper in kilograms.
The tension in the string can be calculated by

t= ( mg ) + F c
2

where g is equal to 9.81 and t is the

tension in Newtons.
The percentage of the string tension provided by weight force could be
calculated by

p1=100(

mg
)
t

where m is the mass of the slotted masses in

kilograms and therefore, the percentage of the tension provided by other sources
could be calculated,

p2=100p 1 .

The kinetic energy of the rubber stopper could be calculated,

Ek is kinetic energy in Joules
For data sets 1, 2 and 3, the following masses were used.

Weight 'Stand': 0.05283kg - Mass 3, Mass 2, Mass 1

1
Ek = mv 2
2

where

Slotted mass 1: 0.05028kg - Mass 3, Mass 2

Slotted mass 2: 0.05016kg - Mass 3
Slotted mass 3: 0.05016kg - Mass 3
Rubber stopper: 0.01399kg

Set 1
Length of twine from tube (Metres)
Fall angle (degrees)
Radius of motion (metres)
Average period (seconds)
Tangential velocity (metres per
second)
Centripetal force (Newtons)
Tension force (Newtons)
Weight force of slotted masses
(Newtons)
Percentage of T provided by mg
(%)
Percentage of T provided by hand
mov. (%)

Mass Mass Mass

1
2
3
0.443
0.443
0.443
5
5
5
4.301
4.301
4.301
0.442
0.442
0.442
0.578
0.456
0.332
4.807
0.731
0.744

6.093
1.174
1.182

8.368
2.216
2.220

0.518
69.64
8
30.35
2

1.011
85.50
2
14.49
8

1.994
89.82
7
10.17
3

Set 2
Length of twine from tube (Metres)
Fall angle (degrees)
Radius of motion (metres)
Average period (seconds)
Tangential velocity (metres per
second)
Centripetal force (Newtons)
Tension force (Newtons)
Weight force of slotted masses
(Newtons)
Percentage of T provided by mg
(%)
Percentage of T provided by hand
mov. (%)

Set 3
Length of twine from tube (Metres)
Fall angle (degrees)
Radius of motion (metres)
Average period (seconds)
Tangential velocity (metres per
second)
Centripetal force (Newtons)
Tension force (Newtons)
Weight force of slotted masses
(Newtons)
Percentage of T provided by mg
(%)
Percentage of T provided by hand
mov. (%)

Mass Mass
Mass
1
2
3
0.738
0.738
0.738
5
5
5
4.301
4.301
4.301
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.760
0.652
0.504
6.079
0.703
0.716

7.086
0.955
0.965

9.167
1.599
1.605

0.518
72.31
3

1.011
104.7
57

27.68
7

-4.757

1.994
124.2
68
24.26
8

Mass Mass
Mass
1
2
3
0.825
0.825
0.825
5
5
5
4.301
4.301
4.301
0.823
0.823
0.823
0.696
0.634
0.493
10.48
7.427
8.154
5
0.938
1.130
1.870
0.948
1.139
1.875
0.518
54.64
2
45.35
8

1.011
88.78
2
11.21
8

1.994
106.3
71
-6.371

For sets 4, 5 and 6, the following masses were used.

Weight 'Stand': 0.05009kg - Mass 6, Mass 5, Mass 4

Slotted mass 4: 0.05012kg - Mass 6, Mass 5
Slotted mass 5: 0.05005kg - Mass 6
Slotted mass 6: 0.05011kg - Mass 6
Rubber stopper: 0.01399kg

Set 4
Length of twine from tube (Metres)
Fall angle (degrees)

Mass Mass Mass

4
5
6
0.678
0.678
0.678
5
5
5
4.301
4.301
4.301

Radius of motion (metres)

Average period (seconds)
Tangential velocity (metres per
second)
Centripetal force (Newtons)
Tension force (Newtons)
Weight force of slotted masses
(Newtons)
Percentage of T provided by mg
(%)
Percentage of T provided by hand
mov. (%)

Set 5
Length of twine from tube (Metres)
Fall angle (degrees)
Radius of motion (metres)
Average period (seconds)
Tangential velocity (metres per
second)
Centripetal force (Newtons)
Tension force (Newtons)
Weight force of slotted masses
(Newtons)
Percentage of T provided by mg
(%)
Percentage of T provided by hand
mov. (%)

Set 6
Length of twine from tube (Metres)
Fall angle (degrees)
Radius of motion (metres)
Average period (seconds)
Tangential velocity (metres per
second)
Centripetal force (Newtons)
Tension force (Newtons)
Weight force of slotted masses
(Newtons)
Percentage of T provided by mg
(%)
Percentage of T provided by hand
mov. (%)
Discussion

0.676
0.566

0.676
0.528

0.676
0.428

7.509
1.166
1.174

8.050
1.340
1.347

9.931
2.040
2.044

0.491
41.81
3
58.18
7

0.982
72.89
5
27.10
5

1.694
82.87
0
17.13
0

Mass Mass Mass

4
5
6
1.095
1.095
1.095
0
0
0
4.301
4.301
4.301
1.092
1.092
1.092
0.662
0.730
0.530
10.36
12.94
3
9.397
4
1.376
1.132
2.147
1.383
1.140
2.151
0.491
35.50
8
64.49
2

0.982
86.15
2
13.84
8

1.694
78.75
1
21.24
9

Mass Mass Mass

4
5
6
1.152
1.152
1.152
5
5
5
4.301
4.301
4.301
1.149
1.149
1.149
0.642
0.672
0.582
11.24
10.74
12.40
4
2
3
1.539
1.405
1.873
1.546
1.412
1.878
0.491
31.76
9
68.23
1

0.982
69.55
9
30.44
1

1.694
90.19
1
9.809

Part 1 Errors of Motion

While conducting the experiment and gathering information, it could be seen
that the rubber stopper would not travel in a completely horizontal path.
This is displayed by the following diagram.

In response to this observation, a fall angle was estimated to account for the
change in radius due to the drop of the rubber stopper and therefore, a more
accurate approximation of the centripetal force could be made.

The estimations made can be seen in the following to scale diagram.

Once the centripetal force was calculated according to these observations, the
tension in the string could be calculated.
The result value of tension could then be compared to the force provided by the
slotted masses to produce an average percentage error of 23%. This tells us that
on average, 23% of the tension force in the string is produced by outside forces.
The results ranged between 68.2% and -24.3%. A negative result tells us that the
outside forces are retarding the weight force by x percent.
The source of this difference in tension is very likely caused by motion described
by the following diagrams.

Part 2 Equipment errors and significant figures

Each piece of equipment used had inaccuracies due to build quality or low
precision but the main source of error was human fault. These errors and
inaccuracies are as follows.
Measuring tape.
-

The smallest grade of marks on the measuring tape were 1mm. Combined
with parallax and rule movement, this gives an error of 0.5mm. On
average, this error was a 0.061% difference in measured radius.
This measurement allows us to record data down to 0.0005 metres and so,
four significant figures were used to the nearest 0.0005.

Stopwatch
-

Due to the software on the phone used to record the period, the time in
seconds could only be recorded to 0.002 of a second. Three significant
figures were used for this section of data.
Average human response time for touch is 0.15 seconds. This means that
the data calculated for the period could be in error by a factor of 0.015
seconds. This error on average changed the result by 2.59%

Slotted Masses
-

After being weighed, the slotted masses and rubber stopper may have
gained an unaccounted mass of oil, dust or skin cells. Mass that was
already on the weighed masses may also have been rubbed off after
weighing. This tells us that during the calculation of data, an incorrect
mass may have been used. We can assume that this would be a very small
amount such as 0.001 grams (0.000001kg) which would not affect our
results.

Circular Motion Kit

-

Scale

As the rubber stopper and twine would encircle the tube, the rubber
stopper and twine would experience air resistance and the twine would
experience friction with the tube. These frictional forces would affect the
result of centripetal force, as more force than what was calculated would
be required to move the stopper in the path described by our data. As the
surface areas of the affected objects were low and the velocities of the
objects were low, we can ignore this error.
During the motion of the experiment, it is possible that the clip moved and
increased the radius of the twine. However, this was noticed during the
experiment and the radius was re-measured before and after each
experiment and there were no changes.
An error could also have been produced by the stretching of the twine,
giving a larger radius than measured. This stretching would have been
minimal because the tension in the string was not particularly high. An
error factor of 0.5% can be estimated.

The scale used to weigh masses in this experiment had an inaccuracy of

0.5g (0.0005kg) which on average was a percentage error of 1.16%
The scale screen displayed to 0.001 but because the last value would vary
largely between measures, two significant figures were used. (00.00g)

In summary there are the following percentage errors:

-

Radius: 0.561%
Period: 2.59%
Mass: 1.16%

From these results it can be calculated that the centripetal force has a
percentage error of 4.22%.

Part 3 Deriving the rule

During analysis of the three types of graphs produced, the trend lines can be
compared and evaluated to determine if proportionalities
and

v2
Fc
R

1
Fc v 2 , Fc
R

are present.

In the first type of graph,

Fc

against

, it can be seen that most values line

up to a proportionality.
The outliers such as the points A and B may have been produced by the
factors of error. A in particular may be the result of poor circular motion as
described in Discussion: Part 1

Type 1
Centripetal Force vs Velocity Squared
2.500
2.000

f(x) = 0.01x + 0.7

R = 0.53

1.500
Centripetal force (n)

1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

Velocity Squared

In the second type of graph,

Fc

against

1
R , it can be seen that there is a

poor relationship to proportionality.

This was likely caused by the low number of results, where the radius was not
varied enough. If there were more points to plot a graph, the values may have

shown a better proportionality.

Type 2
Centripetal Force vs 1/radius
1.800
1.600
1.400
1.200
1.000
Centripetal Force (n)

f(x) = - 0.5x + 1.75

R = 0.54

0.800
0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 2.200 2.400
1 Divided by Radius

Type 2
Centripetal Force vs 1/radius
1.500
1.000
Centripetal Force (n)

f(x) = - 0.05x + 1.26

R = 0.03

0.500
0.000
0.500

1.000

1.500

1 Divided by Radius

2.000

2.500

Type 2
Centripetal Force vs 1/radius
2.500
2.000

f(x) = 0.17x + 1.73

R = 0.14

1.500
Centripetal Force (n)

1.000
0.500
0.000
0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

1 Divided by Radius

Fc

In the third type of graph,

proportionality. The

against

v
R , we can see a direct

value is equal to 1 which means every point on the

graph sits along the trend line. The gradient of this graph is equal to 0.014 which
is equal to the mass of our rubber stopper in kilograms (0.01399kg).

Type 3
Centripetal force vs (v*v)/r
2.500
2.000

f(x) = 0.01x - 0
R = 1

1.500
Centripetal Force (n)

1.000
0.500
0.000
0.000

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

Velocity squared divided by R

The formula

F=

mv 2
, therefore cannot be conclusively proved. As the
r
1

proportionality Fc R according to the data is poor. For the rule to be proved,

there would need to be a strong proportionality between
this to occur, more information may be needed.

Fc

and

1
R

and for

Conclusion
The factors of error in this experiment accounted for many of the minor outliers
on the graphs but the characteristics of the type 2 graph could not be fully
accounted for by the errors and so, a direct proportionality could not be shown.

mv 2
F=
The formula
could not be conclusively derived.
r
If the experiment was to be done again, I would have used heavier slotted
masses, done more radius variations, less mass variations and I would have
recorded the motion using a video camera to observe the characteristics of the
motion.