Net force experienced on the Volare

Inquiry question: How does the rider’s distance from the center of the Volare affect the net
force experienced at different points throughout the ride.

Aim
To investigate how the rider’s radius (distance measured from centre of the ride to the
chair) (innermost chair, outermost chair) affects the net force experienced by the rider at
different positions throughout the ride.

Hypothesis
As the radius of the rider increases, the net force experienced by the rider at all positions
will be greater. This is due to a greater centripetal force required to keep the rider in a
circular motion and hence a greater acceleration, therefore a greater net force. The rider
will experience the greatest magnitude of net force when travelling in the downwards
direction away from the side of the ride that is tilted upwards due to the direction of motion
being closer to the direction of gravity. The smallest magnitude of net force will be
experienced when the rider is travelling in the upwards direction towards the side of the
ride that is tilted upwards, as their motion is directed away from gravity.

Variables

Independent variable

The independent variable in this investigation is the radius of the rider’s circular motion.
This will be changed by recording one data set with the rider sitting in the innermost chair
and recording the next data set with the rider seated in the outermost chair. The magnitude
of the radius will not be recorded due to Luna Park’s restrictions.

Dependent variable

The dependent variable in this investigation is the net force experienced by the rider at
different points throughout the ride. Acceleration (ms^-2) along the rider’s x, y and z axis’
will be measured by taping a vernier force and acceleration sensor attached to the rider. Net
acceleration will then be calculated in vernier graphical analysis using √ x 2+ y 2 + z 2. Net force
(N) values will then be calculated using F net=ma . Acceleration values used in net force
calculations will be derived from an average sine curve fit for the data collected.

Controlled variables

Rider’s mass
- This will be kept constant by recording data using the same rider for both variations
of radius. If the rider happens to vomit when on the ride, this data will not be used
due to their change in mass. Mass needs to be kept constant as the rider’s mass is
directly proportional to forces experienced throughout the ride, and therefore a
change in mass will cause data to be invalid.
Weather conditions
 - Data for each variation of radius will be recorded one after the other with minimal
time in between data collection to minimise susceptibility to changes in weather
conditions such as wind direction and speed. This will need to be controlled as wind
or air resistance may act as an additional force, therefore possibly affecting the
rider’s acceleration, making data invalid.
Sensor
- The sensor will be taped to the rider’s stomach and will not be moved in between
trials. By removing and reattaching the sensor from the rider, the alignment of each
axis may change and therefore the data recorded along the different axis’ will not
kept constant throughout the experiment, causing invalid results.
Movement of the rider
- The rider will be encouraged to stay as still as possible throughout the duration of
the ride. This is due to the rider’s own movements being recorded along with the
motion of the ride, and therefore if the rider’s own voluntary acceleration is
recorded, data collected will be inaccurate and invalid.

Risk assessment

Equipment Risk associated Precaution

Acceleration Sharp corners and hook The metal hook will be replaced with the
sensor may dig into the rider blunt rubber tip to ensure that the rider
possibly causing injury. does not get impaled or injured from the
metal hook. The sensor will be placed flat
against the rider’s stomach and the rider
will be informed to sit upright to minimise
the chance of injury from the corners of the
sensor.
Volare Rider falling out of the The rider will be told to follow all safety
ride instructions given by Luna park staff prior
to the commencement of the ride to
ensure they are secure in the chair.
Volare Motion sickness The rider will be asked if they are feeling fit
to ride prior to beginning data collection as
well as in between trials. If the rider is
feeling unwell, the experiment will be
conducted either when they feel fit to ride
or with another rider.

Materials

- Laptop with vernier graphical analysis installed

- Vernier force and acceleration sensor
- Tape

Method
1. Open Vernier graphical analysis on laptop and
connect vernier force and acceleration sensor via
Bluetooth
2. Under sensor channels, select options as shown
in figure 1.
3. Tape the force and acceleration sensor the Figure 1: settings for data collection
person who will be riding the Volare, making sure it is
secure to minimise accidental movements or becoming detached. Make sure to
advise the rider to sit as still as possible and to position the sensor so that it is level
along all axis’ by aligning its placement with the rider’s own symmetry.
4. Ensure the person recording data is seated on the innermost chair of the ride.
5. As ride begins, begin data collection by clicking ‘collect’ in vernier graphical analysis.
6. Conclude data collection once ride finishes.
7. Save the data set and repeat steps 1-6 in a new experiment file with the person
sitting on the outermost chair.
 RESULTS

Rider’s mass = 62.6kg

DATA SET 1:

Graph 1: Acceleration for innermost chair (smaller radius)

Sine curve fit applied for time interval 73.50-117.46 (s)

Table 1: acceleration for innermost chair

Values calculated from applied sine curve fit
Colou Acceleration (ms^-2) Equation of applied sine curve fit Mean (ms^-2) Max Min
r on (asin(bx+c)+d) (ms^-2) (ms^-2)
graph
Net (√ x 2+ y 2 + z 2) (3dp) 3.948sin(1.811x+0.3504)+13.8 13.8 17.748 9.852
x 0.1202sin(0.2595x+3.753)+0.2559 0.2559 0.3761 0.1357
y 3.721sin(1.811x+3.427)-12.71 -12.71 -8.989 -16.431
z 1.3499sin(1.808x+0.7012)+5.333 5.333 6.6829 3.9831

DATA SET 2:

Graph 2: acceleration for outermost chair

Sine curve fit applied for time interval 60.42-108.20 (s)

Table 2: acceleration for outermost chair
Values calculated from applied sine curve fit
Colour on Acceleration (ms^-2) Equation of applied sine curve Mean (ms^-2) Max Min
graph
fit (asin(bx+c)+d) (ms^-2) (ms^-2)
Net ¿ )(3dp) 6.818sin(1.81x+3.967)+16.54 16.54 23.358 9.722
x 0.317sin(1.792x+4.242)+0.352 0.352 0.669 -0.035
y 4.935sin(1.81x+0.8361)-12.32 -12.32 -7.385 -17.255
z 4.706sin(1.81x+3.953)+11.02 11.02 15.726 6.314

Explanation of trends

Each graph presented a periodic wave trend for y, z and net acceleration. The x axis
acceleration displayed no clear trend between data sets. As the distance of the rider’s
position from the centre of the ride (radius) increased, mean position and maximum values
for the applied sine function curve for net acceleration increased. Minimum values for the
sine curve applied for net acceleration remained very similar across both data sets, with the
innermost chair having a slightly greater minimum value than that of the outermost chair.

As distance of the rider from the centre of the ride (radius) increased, net acceleration
values showed a general increase. This is due to the rider having a greater tangential
velocity due to a greater radius, as v t=ωr . Since angular velocity theoretically remains
constant, as both riders (inside and outside) sweep out the same angle in the same time
interval, this can also be expressed as v t=kr .
v 2 (kr )2 2
This can be substituted into a c = = =k r , as the force causing the rider’s circular
r r
motion is the centripetal force. Acceleration can therefore be expressed as a c =kr . This
shows that net acceleration is directly proportional to radius in the case of this data, and will
therefore increase as the radius increases, hence why acceleration values of the rider
increased from the inside chair to the outside chair. This also shows that as radius increases,
a greater centripetal force is required to keep the rider in circular motion as F c =m ac .
This is due to the rider’s inertial centrifugal force being directly proportional to radius, as
F=m ω2 r . Therefore, as the rider’s distance from the center of the ride increases, their
inertia increases and a greater centripetal force is required to keep them in a circular
motion, hence they will have a greater acceleration.

X axis acceleration records the movement of the rider towards the centre of the ride and is
therefore affected by the angle made by the chair to the roof of the ride. Graph 1 does not
display any visible trend in x axis acceleration whereas graph 2 displays a slight periodic
wave trend for x axis acceleration. The sine curve applied to this set of data in graph 2 (see
table 2) has as an x coefficient of 1.792, whereas applied sine curves for y, z and calculated
(net) acceleration values each have an x coefficient of 1.81, demonstrating that the motion
of the x axis does not change periodically with the rest of the axis’. It can therefore be
concluded that either the radius of the rider remains constant throughout the ride, or the x
axis acceleration values are due to the rider’s own movements or due to the rider’s tilt,
making this data therefore invalid.
 Figure 2: diagrams representing axis of motion of the rider vs the ride

The equation of the applied sine curve fit for y and z axis acceleration values for the
innermost chair had x coefficients 1.808 and 1.811 for z and y axis respectively (see table 1).
X coefficients for the applied sine curve for the outermost chair were 1.81 (see table 2) for
both the z and y axis acceleration. This is due to the tilt of the rider as the ride begins to
accelerate in circular motion. As seen in figure 2, the rider is titled so that their y and z axis’
is different to the axis of the ride itself. Therefore, the acceleration sensor attached to the
rider will record both the z and y axis motion in each individual data set for z and y
acceleration. As a result of this, x coefficients, and therefore the period, of the applied sine
curve for x and y acceleration values across both data sets are very similar or the same.

For data analysis, z and y axis data have been considered as being recorded along the same
axis as the ride itself. This is due to the angle of the tilt for each axis being closer to their
true axis, as seen in figure 2, and therefore values recorded for y axis are closer to the true y
axis rather than the true x axis, and vice versa.

As seen in graphs 1a and 2a, the rider’s y axis acceleration displays a periodic wave shaped
trend with maximum values -8.989 and -7.385 (ms^-2) (see tables 1, 2) for the inside and
outside chair respectively. The acceleration sensor considers acceleration due to gravity,
and therefore the maximum acceleration caused by the ride itself can be given by adding
9.81 (ms^-2) to each of these values, giving 0.821 and 2.425 (ms^-2) for the inside and
outside chair correspondingly. These maximum y acceleration values correspond to when
the rider travels in the positive direction (upwards) as the roof of the ride tilts. Minimum y
acceleration values for graphs 1 and 2 were -6.621 and -7.445 (ms^-2) (see tables 1, 2)
respectively (not accounting for 9.81ms^-2 acceleration due to gravity). These values
correspond to when the rider is travelling away from the side of the roof that is tilted
upwards and towards the side that is lower. This is because the direction of the rider’s
movement is closer to the direction of gravity, so therefore the rider will have a greater
acceleration in this direction. The magnitude of the minimum acceleration values are
greater than that of the maximum values, as when the rider is travelling upwards, the ride is
doing work on the rider that is in the direction that opposes the gravitational force.
However, when travelling downwards, both the ride and gravity are doing work on the rider,
therefore the rider will have a greater acceleration in the downwards direction. Hence, a
 greater acceleration and therefore a greater net force is experienced when the rider is
travelling towards the side of the ride that is tilted downwards.

Data for z axis acceleration displayed a periodic wave trend (see graphs 1, 2) for both the
innermost and outermost chair. As radius increased, mean, maximum and minimum
acceleration values for the applied sine curve fit showed a general increase. Due the rider
being in circular motion, the magnitude of the rider’s z axis velocity will remain constant,
and therefore their changes in z axis acceleration are due to changes in y axis acceleration
due to the roof of the ride’s tilt. Graphs 3 and 4 plot the equation for the sine curve fit
applied for z and y axis acceleration on a cartesian plane (see tables 1, 2) with the mean
position at y = 0.

Graph 3 : z and y axis acceleration for outermost chair Graph 4 : z and y axis acceleration for innermost chair
(larger radius) (smaller radius)

Green curve: y axis acceleration:

Green curve: y axis acceleration: y = 3.721sin(1.811x+3.427)
y=4.935 sin(1.81 x+0.8361) Red curve: z axis acceleration:
Red curve: z axis acceleration: 1.3499sin(1.808x+0.7012)
y=0.4776sin(1.805x+1.511)
Horizontal axis: x
Vertical axis: y

The general alignment for z and y acceleration sine curve seen in graphs 3 and 4 shows z axis
acceleration troughs lining up with y axis acceleration peaks and vice versa. Mean position
has not been considered in order to compare the magnitude and alignment of these
components of acceleration. Y axis acceleration troughs are representative of a greater
magnitude acceleration, hence this acceleration being in the direction of gravity. Y axis
troughs generally align with z axis peaks which are representative of when the rider has a
greater magnitude acceleration along this axis. This shows that these two components of
motion directly influence each other. As the rider travels away from the side of the ride that
is tilted upwards, the direction of movement becomes closer to the direction of gravity.
However, when the rider is travelling towards the side of the ride that is tilted upwards, the
direction of their movement is now in the opposite direction of the gravitational force,
therefore causing them to travel slower, hence a smaller z axis acceleration. This
relationship therefore causes the rider to feel a greater net force in the direction of their
movement when travelling towards the side of the ride that is tilted downwards.
Graph 4 displaying the sine curves corresponding to the innermost chair displayed this same
alignment however the amplitude of the curve representing z axis acceleration was
significantly less than that of the curve representing the y axis acceleration. Since in the case
of this experiment, a c =kr , the rider will experience a smaller z axis acceleration due to a
smaller radius, as the centripetal acceleration occurs along the z axis and is directly
proportional to radius. Therefore, the representation of the z and y axis acceleration in
graphs 3 and 4 further validates that a greater net force will be experienced as the rider’s
distance from the center of the ride (radius) increases.

Graph 5: sine curve fit for net acceleration (√ x 2+ y 2 + z 2)

Red curve: outermost chair: y=6.818sin(1.81x+3.967)+16.54

Green curve: innermost chair: y=3.948sin(1.811x+0.3504)+13.8
Horizontal axis: x
Vertical axis: y

Graph 5 shows the equation of the sine curve fits applied for both the innermost and
outermost net acceleration plotted on the same cartesian plane. Both curves share a very
similar minimum value (9.85, 9.72 (ms^-2) for innermost and outermost chair respectively),
whereas the sine curve representing the outermost chair had significantly larger mean and
maximum values than that of the innermost chair.
The innermost chair had a larger magnitude of minimum net acceleration than the
outermost chair by 0.13 (ms^-2), corresponding to when the rider is travelling towards the
part of the ride that is tilted upwards. This relationship can be seen in graphs 1, 2, where
peaks of y axis acceleration align with troughs of total acceleration. It can therefore be
concluded that the net direction of the force acting in this point in time is towards the
upwards direction of motion, as theoretically, the outermost chair would always have a
larger acceleration than the inside chair if the motion along the y axis were to remain
constant. Therefore, both the tension and force applied by roof to pull the rider in the
upwards direction at this point must be greater than the centripetal force, causing both
radius values to accelerate upwards at very similar rates.
 Mean and maximum values of the sine curve representing the net acceleration for the
outermost chair were greater than those of the innermost chair by 2.74(ms^-2) for the
mean and 5.61 (ms^-2) for the maximum. This is validated in the relationship derived for the
case of this data, a c =kr , demonstrating that as the riders distance form the center of the
ride (radius) increases, centripetal acceleration and therefore net acceleration will increase.

Net force evaluation

Figure 3 : points corresponding to net force calculations

Four points A, B, C, D in figure 3 have been considered for net force calculations, with point
A representing the side of the ride that is tilted upwards. This point corresponds to when
the rider has a minimum net acceleration. Point C corresponds to when the rider has a
maximum net acceleration. Due to the periodic nature of the data collected, points B and D
both correspond to the average value of acceleration experienced.
Values used in calculations are taken from the equation for the sine curve fit for net
acceleration (√ x 2+ y 2 + z 2 ) which is an average for the time interval in which the data
presents a clear periodic wave function, corresponding to when the ride travels in a
constant circular motion at with a constant centripetal force along the z axis.

Net force calculations will be done by using the relationship F net=m a net . Considering the
rider’s mass value of 62.6kg, the net force can be calculated using F net=62.6 anet .

Table 3: net force calculations for innermost chair

Point on diagram (see figure Net force (N) (3sf) G force (ms^-2)(3sf) Direction
3)
A 6.17 x 10^2 1.00 Upwards
B,D 8.64 x 10^2 1.41 Forwards
C 1.11 x 10^3 1.81 Downwards

Table 4: net force calculations for outermost chair

Point on diagram (see figure Net force (N) (3sf) G force (ms^-2)(3sf) Direction
3)
A 6.09 x 10^2 9.91 x 10^-1 Upwards
B,D 1.04 x 10^3 1.69 Forwards
C 1.46 x 10^3 2.38 Downwards

Example of calculations: (point A, innermost chair)

F net=62.6 anet
F net=62.6× 9.852=616.7352 N upwards
≈ 6.17 ×10 2 N upwards(3 sf )

a 9.852 −2
g n= = =1.004281346 m s upwards
g 9.81
−2
≈ 1.00 m s upwards(3 sf )

When the rider was seated in the innermost chair, the net force experienced in the upwards
direction was slightly greater than that of the outermost chair. However, when the rider was
seated in the outermost chair, net force values in the forwards and downwards direction
were significantly larger than those of the innermost chair.
The rider experiences the greatest net force when travelling in the direction of the side of
the roof that is tilted downwards, experiencing a force of 1.81 and 2.38 multiples of gravity
for the innermost and outermost chair respectively. The rider experiences the smallest net
force when travelling in the direction of the side of the roof that is tilted upwards, with
forces 1.00 and 9.91 x 10^-1 multiples of gravity for the innermost and outermost chair
correspondingly. The average force experienced corresponds to when the rider is halfway
between the side of the roof that is tilted upwards and the side of the roof that is tilted
downwards. This average force was 1.41 multiples of gravity for the innermost chair and
1.69 multiples of gravity for the outermost chair.
The greatest net force value obtained was for the outermost chair travelling in the
downwards direction, with the rider experiencing 1.46 x 10^3 N of force, equivalent to 2.38
multiples of gravity.
Overall, the rider experienced a greater net force at most positions along the ride when
seated in the outermost chair. This is due to them experiencing a greater centripetal
acceleration due to the greater centripetal force required to move them in a circular
motion. Therefore, as the radius of circular motion increases, the net forces experienced by
the rider increase.

Accuracy

Data collection in this investigation was accurate to a moderate extent. The instrument used
to record acceleration values was the vernier force and acceleration sensor and had an
uncertainty of ± 0.005 ms^-2 and was therefore sufficient in recording accurate acceleration
values.
Acceleration data was recorded along the x y and z axis of the sensor itself. This was a
source of inaccuracy for analysis along the axis of the ride itself. As seen in figure _, the
acceleration sensor was attached to the rider who was tilted so that their different axis of
motion was not in line with the axis of the ride. The y axis of the rider was tilted away from
the true y axis of both the motion of the ride and acceleration due to gravity. This caused
the data recorded for the z and y axis motion to be inaccurate as both axis were being
recorded in each individual data set for z and y axis. Therefore, analysis of the effect of the
roof’s motion on the motion of the rider was done with less accuracy, as data for y axis
included data from the x and z axis. This also caused inaccuracy in z axis acceleration data as
this was also not recorded along the z axis of the ride itself, and therefore analysis for
centripetal force and acceleration was not completely accurate as this is the force affecting
the motion along the z axis. the rider’s tilt also caused the x axis motion to not be recorded
accurately, and this was reflected in graphs 1 where no trend was present and graph 2
where very little trend was present. Motion along the x axis corresponds to the rider’s
movement towards or away the center of the ride, and therefore the change in radius. Due
to this inaccuracy in the data, no reliable changes in radius were able to be derived, and
therefore evaluations of the direction of net force were slightly less accurate.

A possible source of systematic error was the attachment of the acceleration sensor to the
rider for data collection. The sensor was taped to the rider’s stomach so that each axis was
as straight as possible, however, this may have caused inaccuracies in the angle that data for
each axis was recorded along. There was also the possibility of the sensor’s placement being
disturbed throughout the ride, which would then cause inaccurate and invalid results.

Overall, the experiment was moderately accurate, as recording instruments used had a low
uncertainty however there was inaccuracies in the axis alignment of the rider relative to the
ride itself. However, data was sufficient to calculate net force and derive a relationship
between the distance of the rider from the center of the ride and net force experienced.

Improvements to accuracy

Due to the nature of the ride’s motion, the rider will always be tilted so that their axis of
motion is not aligned with that of the ride itself. To analyse data in accordance with the x, y
and z axis of the ride itself data can be collected in order to calculate the components of
acceleration for each axis. This can be done by means of video analysis to measure the angle
made by the chair to the roof on the ride. On ground level, this is not as clear as pictures
and/or videos are taken so that the point where the chain connects with the roof is
recorded at un upward angle (see figure_), and the reading for this angle will not be
accurate. An accurate value for this angle can be measured by filming from a point which is
directly in line with the top of the ride. This means that this angle can be measured from the
video accurately as this measurement will be in line with the point of connection between
the chain and the roof of the ride.
 Figure 4: ground level vs ideal camera alignment for angle measurement

Once an accurate angle is derived, the components of the rider’s x, y and z axis acceleration
can be calculated as per figure 4. This would therefore give more accurate values for z and y
acceleration, calculated using expressions in figure 4, and therefore a more accurate
determination of the direction of the net force acting on the rider at that point, hence
making the experiment more accurate.

Accuracy can be improved by ensuring a more accurate alignment of the acceleration sensor
relative to the raider’s personal axis’ of motion. Using a construction levelling tool when
taping the sensor to the rider will make sure that the sensor is aligned with the rider’s true
axis of movement, and therefore will ensure that data collected for each axis component is
closer to the rider’s axis of movement. Therefore, if calculations of components of
acceleration are to be made, these values will therefore be more accurate.

Validity

Mass and weather conditions were kept constant for data collection across both radius
values, contributing to the validity of the experiment. The absence of a trend seen for x axis
acceleration in graph 1 suggests that the rider’s movement and/or the position of the sensor
was not kept controlled.
The rider’s own movements may contribute to invalid data as these movements will be
recorded and counted as the motion of the ride itself. The rider’s own movements along
with many other factors are also able to contribute to the position of the sensor staying
constant. the sensor’s position was not recorded and checked between data collection for
each radius value, allowing for the possibility of it becoming loose and/or moving its
position. If this is to happen, then data collected will be invalid as the change in axis of
measurement will therefore mean that acceleration data collected for separate axis’ is a
combination of multiple axis of motion that is changing throughout the ride and therefore
data is invalid.

Overall, the experiment was valid to a high extent as data collected was sufficient to answer
the aim by showcasing a clear relationship between the rider’s distance from the center of
the ride (radius) and the net force experienced.
Improvements to validity

Validity can be improved by conducting the investigation based on the mass of the chair
itself. By taping the sensor to the chair as opposed to a person riding, data will be more valid
as the chair’s only movements are those caused by the motion of the ride itself. Since the
chair is not moving by itself, the sensor is therefore more likely to stay in the position in
which it was been taped as. These actions would make the experiment more valid as there
are less factors affecting the motion of the sensor. This will still be sufficient to answer the
aim, as the chair has mass and therefore if its mass is known, the net force experienced can
still be expressed as a multiple of gravity.

Reliability

The experiment was reliable to a low extent as only one trial was conducted for each radius
value. Due to this, consistency is unable to be checked for amongst trials and therefore
inaccurate results or outliers are unable to be removed.

Improvements to reliability

Reliability can be improved by conducting five trials and analysing the average for the
results amongst all trials. By conducting more trials, results will be checked for consistency
and any outliers present will not be included in data analysis.

Evaluation of inquiry question

The inquiry question relating the radius of circular motion and the net forces experienced by
the rider was valid to a large extent as sufficient data was able to be gathered to establish a
relationship between these two variables. This relationship was reflected in mathematical
equations relating these concepts.

Sufficient data was gathered to show that as radius increases, the rider’s acceleration, and
therefore net force experienced, increased. This can be seen in a c =kr , as these two
variables are directly proportional to one another.

This question allowed for reliable data to be collected through repeated trials however
repeated trials were not carried out in the experiment. However, the inquiry question itself
was still appropriate by allowing for possible collection of both valid and reliable data.

Conclusion

The experiment was valid as it has successfully answered the aim by establishing the
relationship between the radius of circular motion of a rider on the Volare and the net force
experienced at different points along the ride. Data collected showed that as the distance of
the rider from the center of the ride increased, the net force experienced by the rider
showed a general increase, predominantly in mean and maximum net force values.
 References

Farr, R., Wilson, K., Young, P., Goossens, D., & Champion, N. (2018). Physics in Focus Year 12

(2nd ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Nelson, An Imprint Of Cengage Learning Australia.

Physics forums. (2008, November 23). Circular Motion of swing ride. Retrieved January 25, 2024,

from Physics Forums: Science Discussion, Homework Help, Articles website:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/circular-motion-of-swing-ride.274376/#:~:text=The

%20radius%20of%20the%20circular%20path%20directly%20affects%20the%20speed

University of South Carolina. (2001). Physics 101 Circular Motion. Retrieved February 12, 2024,

from boson.physics.sc.edu website:

http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~rjones/phys101/circlmot.html