Measuring an angle in non-inertial frame reference

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on verifying the equation a=gtanθ for measuring acceleration using a pendulum in a non-inertial frame of reference, specifically in an accelerating cart. Participants are exploring methods to accurately measure the angle θ that the pendulum makes with the vertical while the cart accelerates. Suggestions include using a support to hold the pendulum at an initial angle to avoid overshooting the desired angle during measurement. However, there is concern about the need for clear lab procedures that allow reproducibility of the experiment without relying on trial and error. The conversation emphasizes the importance of developing a systematic approach for accurate angle measurement in the experiment.
Sonya36
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
In class, we came up with an equation, a=gtanθ, to calculate the acceleration of a car using a hanging pendulum in Earth's frame of reference (θ being the angle that the pendulum makes with the vertical when the car accelerates). So far, I know that that the pendulum moves in the opposite direction of the car's acceleration and only tension force and gravity are acting on the pendulum in inertial frame of reference.
so eq1. Tsinθ=ma
eq2. Tcosθ=mg and when you solve for a, you get a=gtanθ

But we are trying to develop procedures for an experiment that verifies this equation. We need to find both acceleration and angle that the pendulum makes in an accelerating cart and prove that the equation is valid. We have a motion sensor to detect the acceleration of a moving cart. We are making the cart to accelerate at a constant rate by hanging a mass and dropping it. The part that we are not sure about is how to measure the angle that the pendulum makes with the vertical in the accelerating cart. We thought about taping a protractor to the cart and taking snapshots during the acceleration, but it's difficult to get a clear picture. Do you have any ideas or suggestions to improve our experiment?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello Sonya36 and welcome to PF.

I would imagine that if the pendulum is initially hanging vertically when you release the cart, then the pendulum will swing back and overshoot the angle θo that you are trying to measure, thus making the measurement of θo difficult.

In order to avoid this, you might try using a support on the cart (shown in blue in the figure) to hold the pendulum at some initial angle before letting the cart go. If the initial supporting angle is less than θo, then the ball will lose contact with the support after releasing the cart. Thus, by trial and error, you could find the position of the support where the pendulum just starts to lose contact with the support when the cart is released. Maybe this would help. I have never tried it, so it is just a suggestion.
 

Attachments

  • accelerometer.png
    accelerometer.png
    1 KB · Views: 1,421
TSny said:
Hello Sonya36 and welcome to PF.

I would imagine that if the pendulum is initially hanging vertically when you release the cart, then the pendulum will swing back and overshoot the angle θo that you are trying to measure, thus making the measurement of θo difficult.

In order to avoid this, you might try using a support on the cart (shown in blue in the figure) to hold the pendulum at some initial angle before letting the cart go. If the initial supporting angle is less than θo, then the ball will lose contact with the support after releasing the cart. Thus, by trial and error, you could find the position of the support where the pendulum just starts to lose contact with the support when the cart is released. Maybe this would help. I have never tried it, so it is just a suggestion.

Thank you for the suggestion, it's definitely worth trying! But I need to write lab procedures that would allow other people to repeat the same experiment. I don't know if trial and error is what they want..
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top