E101 Lab Report Group 4
E101 Lab Report Group 4
E101 Lab Report Group 4
__1__
Title: Newton’s Second Law of Motion
PHYS101L / B8 Group No. 4
DATE: 24/11/22
Part I. Newton's Law Lab with Photogates (Varying hover puck mass)
Based on the data written and collected from the experiment, each table produced different
results since the controlled variable for each table was different. For Table 1A, the controlled variable
was the hanging mass compared to Table 1B which had the hover puck mass as the controlled variable.
For Table 1A, analyzing the data table and the graph, a pattern can be deduced whenever the
hover puck mass increases or decreases. Comparing the first and second trials using 0.10 kg. and 0.20
kg. of puck mass respectively, it can be seen that the rate of acceleration decreased when a mass of
0.10 kg. was added. To strengthen this, the graph shows a negative slope between the point of 0.1 kg.
and 0.2 kg., inferring a slower rate of acceleration in the second trial. This trend continues for the rest
of the trials, showing that the addition of incremental masses (in this case, 0.1 kg.) causes a decrease
in acceleration. In addition to this, each point in the graph exhibits different slopes with each other that
get less steep than its preceding trial, indicating that the decrease in acceleration is exponential,
compared to the addition to the puck mass which was constant. This goes to show that the acceleration
of the puck is inversely proportional to the mass of the hover puck itself since the increase of the puck
mass consequently causes the decrease of the acceleration of the system.
As mentioned earlier, the controlled variable varied with each segment of the experiment. For
the second part, the researchers have set the hover puck mass as the controlled variable, compared
to the first part which had the hanging mass as constant.
For Table 1B, analyzing the data table and the graph once again showed a pattern whenever
the hanging mass was increased or decreased. Comparing the first and second trials using 0.10 kg.
and 0.20 kg. of hanging mass respectively, it is visible that the rate of acceleration increased when a
mass of 0.10 kg. was placed upon the pulley. Compared to the first segment of the experiment where
the hanging mass was constant, the slope of the points of 0.1 kg. and 0.2 kg. The graph exhibits a
positive slope which meant a higher rate of acceleration in the second trial after the hanging mass was
increased. This trend seemingly continues for the rest of the trials, showing that incremental addition
of masses (in this case, 0.1 kg.) towards the hanging mass causes an increase in acceleration. In
contrast to the first segment of the experiment, each point in the second graph still shows varied slopes
between points but is now positive in this particular case (although the point between 0.3 kg. and 0.4
Conclusion
In conclusion, this experiment remarkably displayed the concepts of Isaac Newton’s Second
Law of Motion. Figure 1 exhibits the decrease of acceleration when the mass of the object in the system
increases. Consecutively, Figure 2 manifests the increase of acceleration when the force applied to a
point of interest also increases. These results supported and proved Newton’s Second Law of Motion
by showing that a body’s acceleration is directly proportional to the net force acting on the system while
inversely proportional to its mass.