Finding hight of an inclined palne with its lengh and a force

  • Thread starter Thread starter RockenNS42
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Inclined
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the height of inclined planes using experimental data involving force and length. The user collected data while pulling a trolley up various inclined planes, all with a known height of 15.5 cm. Suggestions were made to analyze the data by plotting force against the product of mass and gravitational acceleration divided by length, which aligns with the linear equation format. This approach helps in minimizing consistent errors and allows for a more accurate determination of height through the slope of the graph. Ultimately, this method yielded a slope close to the original height, confirming its effectiveness.
RockenNS42
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
I had several inclined planes, all with the same height(15.5cm) I then pulled up a trolley (600g) with a force metre here are my results
length force
66.8 1.5
57.1 2
47.6 2.5
38.3 3
29.4 4
21.6 5.5
16.3 6.5

I now need to manipulate the raw data to find the height (which is already known to be 15.5)




2. Homework Equations

work done= energy transferred
?fd=mgh?

3. The Attempt at a Solution

I was trying
fd=mgh

for example for the first one
1.5 * .668 = .6kg* 9.8 *h
17cm




I'd really appreciate some help, thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your calc looks good! You could repeat it for each set of data and then take an average to get an estimate of the height.

The trouble with an average is that the experiment may have some consistent errors that get included. You have a better chance of getting an accurate result if you analyze experimental data on a graph. Can you think of a way to make your Fd = mgh look like the y = mx + b of a straight line equation? Clearly the b is zero, so compare
Fd = mgh with y = mx.
The F and d are your measurements sort of corresponding to y and x, so you want to get one of them on the right side. You could use
F = mgh/d
Comparing that with y = mx, knowing you want the slope to be the h, you see that you should plot F on the side and mg/d on the bottom. Graph the data that way and find the slope. If you get a y-intercept other than the zero theory predicts, you can be happy knowing that you are eliminating some of that consistent error!
 
I tried that and it works good.
Thanks alot, I never really thought of doing
it that way (F=mgh/d) And the slope turned out
to be colse to the orginal height. :)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top