Newton's 3 Laws Lab: Solving Problems on Inclined Plane

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kandycat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lab Laws
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around a lab report analyzing the motion of a mass (a book) sliding down an inclined plane, specifically addressing the calculated acceleration of 16.9 m/s² versus the expected gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s². The participant questions whether the higher value represents weight and seeks clarification on calculating net force using Newton's 2nd Law (F = ma). The confusion stems from the misapplication of acceleration values in the context of inclined planes.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion
  • Familiarity with inclined plane physics
  • Knowledge of basic kinematics and acceleration calculations
  • Proficiency in using equations of motion, particularly F = ma
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the principles of inclined plane dynamics
  • Study the derivation of acceleration on inclined planes
  • Learn how to calculate net force on an object using F = ma
  • Examine the differences between weight and acceleration in physics
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics courses, educators teaching mechanics, and anyone conducting experiments related to Newton's Laws and inclined planes.

Kandycat
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I am doing a lab report for a lab I did in class. The lab is about sliding a mass (in this case a book) down an inclined plane. I collected the data and calculated the acceleration for the mass if it fall at 90 degrees. I have to do an analysis but I having some trouble answering these questions.

1. When I found the acceleration for the mass when it slides down at a 90 degree angle to be 16.9 m/s2. The acceleration of gravity of is 9.8 m/s2. So why isn't this the value of 9.8 m/s2? Is it because 16.9 m/s2 is the weight?

2. How do I find net force on a mass on an inclined plane? I'm pretty sure I have to use Newton's 2nd Law equation: F = ma. But do I use 9.8 m/s2 or 16.9 m/s2 for a?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Clearly the acceleration can't be 16.9m/s^2. Could you please post your measurement data and the equations used to obtain this value? They must contain an error somewhere.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
868
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K