Road always travelled by: motion on horizontal and inclined planes

Carrillo, Michelle Grace1, Garces, Jhoana,1 Igualada, Rose Aliza1 and Qureshi, Almeera1* 1 Ateneo de Manila University, Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights, Quezon City *Corresponding author: screamingpapers@yahoo.com

Abstract
The motion of a cart on a horizontal and inclined planes were quantitatively described using velocity and acceleration. A Vernier Photogate was used to detect the motion transmitted by the miniature cart and the data were collected and graphed using LoggerPro 3.8.4 and Microsoft Excel respectively. From the data obtained, velocities and accelerations were identified and were compared to the theoretical value. Positive accelerations were obtained on inclined plane while negative accelerations were obtained on horizontal plane, indicating deceleration. It was then concluded that the motion of the miniature cart can be described using the linear motion.

I. Introduction
Imagine a car speeding through the freeway. It moves rapidly and smoothly, almost as if gliding on the road. Another thing that can be said about the car is that its movement is a straight line. The described motion of the car can be described as linear. So can any object moving at a straight line be described as having linear motion? Well, not necessarily. According to Newtons First Law of Motion, objects that do not experience any net force will continue to move in a straight line with a constant velocity until they are subjected to a net force. Motion under ordinary circumstances is often not strictly linear since gravity and friction affect them. So movement of an object in a straight line cannot be described as perfectly linear since gravity and friction can always affect it. Linear motion is described quantitatively using displacement, velocity, and acceleration. These vector quantities are the basics and the essentials in the study of kinematics, the branch of physics dealing with motion. In practical situations, velocity of a car can be measured using the cars speedometer. The straight line motion of a car can also change when it speeds up or when it slows down. Thus, there is acceleration, a change in the velocity of the car. In this experiment, the motion of a car through a highway is replicated using a miniature cart and a ramp. The motion of the cart is described quantitatively using the three vector quantities mentioned earlier. These were measured and graphed using the software, LoggerPro3.8.4.

II. Theoretical Framework

Motion is most simply put as the change of position of a body with respect to time. This is described using velocity and acceleration. For this experiment, acceleration, a vector quantity which describes the change of the velocity of the body with respect to its time, was focused upon. It is said that for a body to accelerate, an external force must be applied to it [1]. The equation for acceleration is as follows: . Based on the formula, the SI unit for acceleration used is m/s 2. In order to obtain a uniform or constant acceleration, the rate at which velocity either increases or decreases should be uniform. The derived equation for this is: xf = x0+ v0t + at2, Where xf and x0 are the final and initial positions, respectively; v0 is the initial velocity and t refers to time. A more efficient way to detect the acceleration of a moving body is through the use of Vernier Photogate. This instrument detects real-time events which is most helpful when studying acceleration. The data is then projected through the use of Logger Pro where three graphs are obtained: distance vs. time, velocity vs. time, and acceleration vs. time. Through the projected graphs, the distance traveled by an object, its velocity with respect to its time, and its acceleration within that time frame is seen.

Once data is collected, it is transferred to Microsoft Excel where the slope of the distance vs. time graph determined through the addition of a linear trendline and an equation: , Where m is the slope, y is the vertical component and b is a constant. m describes the velocity of the moving object using its distance vs. time graph. Another kind of trendline was used in the analysis of the data. This is the polynomial trendline which is employed in finding the acceleration of the body using its distance vs. time graph. It follows the equation: Where y is the vertical component, x referring to time, and A, B, and C are constants. By solely using the distance vs. time graph, the acceleration a can be measured in terms of the A in the equation provided when polynomial trendline is used. Logger Pro can also be used in finding this by simply adding a quadratic curve fit which would result in the same equation. Acceleration a was measured through the following equation: A=( Since acceleration of the glider was not only done on horizontal plane, but also on inclined ones, another formula was used: , Where a is acceleration, g refers to acceleration due to gravity, at a certain angle This serves as the theoretical acceleration to which experimental acceleration was compared to.

III. Methodology A. Materials

The primary equipment used in the experiment was the Vernier Photogate which allows accurate timing of events hence it is the appropriate tool for studying acceleration and other quantities related to it such as distance and velocity. Logger Pro was also used as an intermediary where data collected by the photogate kit would be presented graphically on screen. This program could also be used for data analysis, however, Microsoft Excel was preferred. B. Procedure For the first part of the experiment, the air track where the glider shall pass was positioned linearly. The photogate kit which detects the motion of the air track was adjusted so that it could detect the glider passing through it easily without any blockage to its sensors. A total of six blinks indicate that the photogate kit is able to sense the glider with the chopper. The photogate plug was connected to the DG1 terminal of the Universal Laboratory Interface and the file Motion Timer with Vernier Picket Fence was opened from the files within Logger Pro. A window containing three graphsdistance vs. time, velocity vs. time, and acceleration vs. timethen appeared. The Collect button was pressed and the glider was pushed gently and slightly along the horizontal air track. After the whole chopper of the glider has passed through the photogate kit, the Stop button was pressed to end data collection; with this, three graphs appeared on the screen. These graphs correspond to the distance vs. time, velocity vs. time, and acceleration vs. time of the glider pushed slightly. The steps were repeated for the second push which was harder than the first. For the second part of the experiment, the air track was inclined to test for the acceleration of the glider along an inclined plane. This was done twice, the first one at a high inclination, while the second one was at a lower inclination. Necessary adjustments to the photogate were performed before proceeding with the experiment which is to simply let go of the glider so it slides down the incline. Two different angles (high and low inclinations) were computed for. Accelerations were solved using Logger Pro and curve fits: linear and quadratic curve fits for the distance vs. time graphs. C. Statistical Tools To check for the accuracy of the data obtained, percent error was used wherein the ratio of the difference between the theoretical acceleration ( ) and the actual experimental acceleration, and the theoretical value of acceleration was computed and then multiplied by a hundred percent.

A percent error of less than 50% is deemed acceptable. For percent error values exceeding this, the experiment should be done again. For precision of the data obtained over five trials for the acceleration values in the first and second inclinations, standard deviation was used to see how spread out these data are. Mathematically, it is represented as such:

In order to assure the reliability of the graphs, linear trendlines (in Excel) or Curve Fits (in Logger Pro) were employed to see whether graphs, especially for Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, have values close to each other. For Figures 5 and 7, a polynomial trendline was used to see the level of constancy of its acceleration.

IV. Results and Discussions

The fundamentals of linear motion were illustrated through the motion of a glider along a horizontal plane and inclined plane. After the data collection of Logger Pro 3.8.4 through the motion sensor through, these data were transferred into Microsoft Excel. Relationships between distance, velocity, acceleration, and time were presented graphically. 0.14 0.12 Distance (m) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Time (s) 0.4 0.5 0.6 y = 0.2301x + 0.0031

Figure 1. Distance vs. Time Graph: Slow, Gentle Push of Glider along a Horizontal Plane

Through the force exerted by the hand, the cart was able to move along the horizontal plane. With a gentle push, Figure 1 shows the graph of distance with respect to time. This follows a linear trend wherein the glider progresses forward as the time increases. The equation of the line was determined. There is a positive slope of 0.230 reflected by the direct proportionality between distance and time. Moreover, the slope is the velocity of the motion; which would mean that the velocity is 0.230 m/s. 0.25 0.24 Velocity (m/s) 0.23 0.22 0.21 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Time (s) 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 2. Velocity vs. Time Graph: Slow, Gentle Push of Glider along Horizontal Plane

Figure 2 demonstrates the relationship between velocity and time as the cart accelerated along a horizontal plane with a gentle push. The velocity of the cart decreased as it moved forward, making the graph sloping downward. The motion did not exhibit uniform velocity as suggested by the graph.

The graph for a uniform velocity is a straight horizontal line above the x-axis. Since the motion was acted by the force, the velocity should decrease and there would be a point that it would stop. However, the decrease in velocity was not entirely the same since some of the points in graph did not lie on the trendline. 0.14 0.12 0.1 Distance (m) 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.05 0.1 Time (s) 0.15 0.2 y = 0.8741x + 0.0002

Figure 3. Distance vs. Time: Stronger Push of Glider along Horizontal Plane

With a stronger force applied to the glider, the movement of the glider was faster and took up lesser time to cover a distance. Figure 3 presents the graph of distance vs. time when the glider was pushed with greater force along the horizontal plane. The slope of the line was also going upward but much steeper and had greater velocity which is 0.874 m/s. 0.879 0.878 0.877 0.876 0.875 0.874 0.873 0.872 0.871 0.87 0.869 0 0.05 Time (s)
Figure 4. Velocity vs. Time Graph: Stronger Push of Glider along Horizontal Plane

Velocity (m/s)

0.1

0.15

The use of a stronger force permitted the glider to gain speed when it slides along the horizontal plane. With a greater force, Figure 4 display that initially the velocity was higher and the first three points in the graph have close values. It meant that while the push was stronger, there are relatively similar velocities at the beginning and was ruined by the abrupt stop of the glider. There was not also a uniform velocity when it changes value over time. Figure 4 also indicates that the slope is downward and the velocity would continue to decrease. 0.14 0.12 Distance (m) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.05 0.1 Time (s) 0.15 0.2 y = 0.5665x2 + 0.5736x + 6E-05

Figure 5. Distance vs. Time Graph: Acceleration of Glider along an Inclination Angle of 9.13

By measuring the length and width of the air track and getting the inverse of tan , the angle of inclination was determined. Figure 5 illustrates the distance vs. time graph of the acceleration along the calculated angle of approximately 9.13. The glider was dropped from the top of the inclination and was allowed to glide down until it reached the bottom. The inclination permitted the glider to accelerate due to gravity, and thus the acceleration was constant caused by gravity. A motion of an object with constant acceleration is expected to have a polynomial distance vs. time graph. The polynomial fit trendline was added to the graph so that the value of A can be known and consequently 2 the acceleration value can be solved. The equation shows y = 0.566x + 0.573x + 6E-05 and by manipulation the equations: y = At2 + Bt + C where t = x A=a In the given equation, A = 0.566, therefore, a is 1.132 m/s2. 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.05 0.1 Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)

y = 1.1194x + 0.5748

0.15

0.2

Figure 6. Velocity vs. Time Graph: Acceleration of Glider along an Inclination Angle of 9.13

Figure 6 provides the graph of velocity vs. time graph of the glider accelerating along an inclined plane with an angle of 9.13. As the glider went down, the velocity increases. The graph has a positive slope of 1.119, which also means that the acceleration was 1.119 m/s2. 0.14 0.12 Distance (m) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Time (s) 0.2 0.25 y = 0.2863x2 + 0.4963x + 3E-06

Figure 7. Distance vs. Time Graph: Acceleration of Glider along an Inclination Angle of 4.54

The second inclination was calculated to be 4.54. Figure 5 illustrates the distance vs. time graph of the acceleration along the second inclination. The polynomial fit trendline was also added to the 2 graph, with an equation of y = 0.286x + 0.496x + 3E-05. The equation was manipulated again; when 2 A = 0.286, a is 0.572 m/s . In comparing which trendline provides better fit, it is expected that the quadratic fit line compared with the linear fit line. This is because when the motion has a constant acceleration, the points are forms curve lines. Quadratic fit gives a better fit since the quadratic fit line adapts, becomes more curve or less curve, so that the point is enclosed in the line.

0.64 0.62 Velocity (m/s) 0.6 0.58 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.5 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Time (s) 0.2 0.25 y = 0.5764x + 0.4957

Figure 8. Velocity vs. Time Graph: Acceleration of Glider along an Inclination Angle of 4.54

The velocity vs. time graph of the glider accelerating along an inclination angle of 4.54 is shown in figure 8. The slope of the line is less steep and therefore has lower acceleration, which is 0.576 m/s 2. A lower angle gives lower acceleration. The distance vs. time graph has polynomial fit trendline whereas velocity vs. time graph has linear fit trendline. The shape of the former is a curved line oriented upward, while the latter is straight line going upward. The slope of the line in the distance vs. time graph is the average velocity of the motion. Aside from the acceleration derived from both graphs of distance vs. time and velocity vs. time, there was an automatic command in Logger Pro that determines the value of A in the equation y = At2 + Bt + C. Consequently, acceleration was measured by multiplying A by 2. The data was fit in a quadratic curve and 5 values of A were used for five trials. Table 1. Standard deviation of the Acceleration Values taken from Logger Pro 3.8.4 Angle of Inclination() Average Experimental Acceleration Standard Deviation 1 = 9.13 1.113 m/s 0.042597042 2 = 4.54 0.5874 m/s 0.012547032

Table 1 shows the standard deviation of the acceleration values of five trials that was taken from Logger Pro 3.8.4. The standard deviations of 1 is approximately 0.0426 and for 2 it is approximately 0.0125. These values are relatively low which means that the values deviated just a little from each other. Moreover, the values were closer to zero than one. Table 2. Summary of Theoretical and Average Experimental Acceleration of 1 st and 2nd Inclination and their Corresponding Percent Errors Angle of Inclination() 1 = 9.13 2 = 4.54 Theoretical Acceleration ( ) 1.56 m/s2 0.776 m/s2 Average Experimental Acceleration 1.113 m/s2 0.5874 m/s2 Percent Error 28.5% 18.8%

The average experimental acceleration was just the mean of each of the acceleration values that were obtained. There were five trials, so the values in each trial were added and then divided by five. The theoretical acceleration was computed in the equation . The gravity constant was used since the acceleration was due to gravity. Percent errors were also determined by subtracting the average experimental from theoretical acceleration then dividing it again by the theoretical value. The calculated average experimental accelerations were relatively accurate since the percent errors are fairly low.

One cannot expect to have the experimental acceleration and theoretical acceleration to be exactly the same for the factors that could affect the acceleration during the experiments. Though the air track has minimal friction force, this is one of the factors that change the value of acceleration. Environmental factors also play along such as air resistance and humidity. Lastly, the inconsistency in which the glider was dropped and travelled through the air track also alters the acceleration.

V. Conclusions
Motion of the cart was described using speed and velocity. The experiment was divided into two parts: horizontal plane motion or inclined plane motion. At the same time, at least five trials were conducted for each set-up and standard deviation was used to validate the precision of each trial. After validating the precision of the set of data, the mean was used to determine the acceleration. On horizontal motion, force was exerted initially in order for the cart to move. Two degrees of push was used: a gentle and strong push. The gentle and strong push depicted a positive velocity of 0.230 m/s and 0.874 m/s respectively. At the same time, the versus time graph, wherein the slope indicates the acceleration, showed that the acceleration for both gentle and strong push were negative. The negative acceleration projected that the moving body will soon come to rest. On inclined plane motion, no initial push was given and gravity was the major force acting on the cart that causes the motion. Two different angle of elevation were employed: 4.54 and 9.13. Based on the experimental data, the larger angle projected a positive acceleration of 1.113 m/s 2. However, theoretical concept suggested that the value of acceleration for this given angle should be 1.56 m/s2. This gives a 28.5% error. On the other hand, the experimental data on the smaller angle suggested a value of 0.5874 m/s2 for the acceleration. This data gave an 18.8% error since the theoretical value for acceleration in the given angle was 0.776 m/s2 Although the percent errors computed were generally not high, it can be further minimized by devising a way to get the angle of elevation more accurately. Specific protractors, like bevel protractors, are designed to measure angle accurately compared to simple protractors used in papers [2]. Trigonometric functions however can be used, although inaccuracy may lie on the fact that the length and height of the rack can have different measurements since the system was not perfectly symmetrical. At the same time, the rack to be used shall be secured with tapes or bands to prevent them from being displaced as the cart moves.

References
1. Elert Glenn. Motion. The Physics Hypertext. Retrieved 30 Nov 2012 < http://physics.info/motion/> 2. Chronos Engineering Supplies. Bevel Protractor. Multipurpose Angle. Retrieved 30 Nov 2012 < http://www.chronos.ltd.uk/acatalog/measuring_tools.html>