What is Causing the Exponential Curve in My Velocity Squared vs. Radius Graph?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireLight07
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regression Root
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a physics lab report on centripetal force, where the author encounters an unexpected exponential curve in their velocity squared vs. radius graph, despite expecting a root curve. Initial data points indicate a linear relationship, which aligns with the theory that v^2 = Fr/m. The author confirms that the force was constant during the experiment, ruling it out as a variable affecting the results. Acknowledgment of the linearity suggests that the relationship between velocity squared and radius is indeed a direct proportion. The conversation highlights the importance of accurately analyzing data and recognizing the effects of experimental setup on results.
FireLight07
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey--

I'm writing up a physics lab report on centripetal force; at the moment I've hit a problem with the velocity squared vs. radius graph. The graph *should* show a root curve (v^2 = Fr/m) but all of the regression utilities I've used churn out an exponential curve. Here are the four points I have:

Radius (m)
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

Velocity Squared (m^2/s^2)
43.52321446
105.3350938
174.1416131
227.3593065

Adding to the enigma is the fact that my velocity vs. radius graph, which should also show a root curve, actually DID. All I did to the velocities was square them for the v squared graph.

Any idea what's going on?
Thanks!

Pat
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you kept F constant for all those measurements?
 
I think you are making too much of this. The graph of v^2\ vs\ r looks quite linear to me. If you analyze data with numerical facilities you can end up with all sorts of wonderful relationships between the variables. Such facilities are used when the relationship between the variables are complicated and cannot be described easily. We tend to use the simplest relationships that seems to fit the data, which in this case is linear. Your analysis may show effect of drag on the velocity though, since the velocities are getting quite high.
 
You're right, actually, it WAS linear. Turns out I'm looking at v^2 as a single variable, which makes the relation a simple direct proportion. :-) Thanks for the help!

Pat

(BTW: Force was constant throughout, so it wasn't a factor...we rigged up a very rough centripetal force apparatus with some string and a straw and some other stuff, so it isn't very accurate--but force was constant. :-P )
 
Actually, the fact that the graph seems to be linear implies that you kept the ratio of the mass and centripetal force constant, otherwise it would not have been linear.
 
Last edited:
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