Rohan Joshi

Mr. Kilpatrick
IB1 Physics B3
28 January 2015
Mass v. Acceleration
In the experiment that I conducted, I wanted to find the relation between the mass of an
object and its acceleration. If I were to change the mass in any way, would the acceleration
increase or decrease? In order to find these results, I set up a lab that included the use of 2 carts,
both with an elastic rubber band in between them. I stretched the rubber band to a certain
position, let go, and calculated the results of the values. One cart had a changing mass, the other
stayed constant (had no masses added onto it). I took results through the use of video analysis on
Logger Pro, and through it found the results of acceleration as the mass continually increased.
These results told me the exact relationship between mass and acceleration. My research
question is:
Would changing the mass of an object change the acceleration of the object?
I wanted to do this lab as I wanted to find the raw relationship between mass and
acceleration. Normally, this is only hinted on and Newtons second law is immediately shown.
But the relationship between both of the variables is what I have always been fascinated by.
When this opportunity arose, I had to seize it and attempt to find out what the exact relationship
between both were. After I found the results, it helped me understand acceleration and mass
more. It showed me that although the acceleration can stay constant, if the mass of the block

becomes larger and larger, the multiple forces that are applied on the block are not balanced and
will make the block move at a very slow pace. This experiment helped me compile all of the
things I knew about forces, motion, mass, and acceleration.
Variables:
Independent Variable: The masses of the carts. I changed the masses in order to see what effect
these changes would have on the acceleration of the cart. I measured this using a balance, and
added more and more massive weights.
Dependent Variable: The acceleration of the car. I measured through the use of video analysis on
Logger Pro after taking videos of each trial. The averages are presented in a table below with
appropriate uncertainties.
Constants: The amount of rubber bands used in order to stretch the carts back. Also, the distance
which we stretched them back also remained constant.
Controls: Simply do the procedure without putting any weights on the carts. This will give one
the unchanged, original data to compare the collected data to.
Materials
2 Carts of Equal Mass (w/o any added weights)
Weights of 0.5 kg, 1 kg, 1.5 kg, and 2 kg
1 Rubber Band
A video recording device
Laptop equipped with logger pro
2 Meter sticks
Procedure
1. Put 2 Meter Sticks down on the ground, end to end
2. Put both carts down, and attach the rubber band to the clips at the end. It should loosely
sit on them.

3. Align video capture device above the situation, making sure to capture both meter sticks
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

in the frame to later use in Logger Pro for scale

Have someone pull both carts back to -30cm and 30cm on each respective side.
Begin capturing video from device
Let go, and allow the carts to collide.
Take as many trials with multiple masses for a range of data.
Analyze in Logger Pro through Video Analysis, using only points from when the carts

acceleration began till the point just before the crash

9. The line should be linear (if needed linearize using log-log transformation)
10. The slope of the linearized function is the value of acceleration
11. Repeat 8-10 for all videos to complete all data
Uncertainty
The uncertainty for the masses is based on the fact that the weights were not solid
weights, and instead were the weights which contain beads in order to make the weight proper.
The uncertainty must be put on it to account for any of the errors in the weight itself. The
acceleration must have an uncertainty put on it for a number of reasons. The first, most obvious,
reason is the meter sticks. They may not be exactly a meter, and therefore may not provide
accurate results for the velocity on the graphing software. Also, the video recorder may have
been on a slight angle or been moving while capturing the videos for analysis, this could have led
to the values being slightly skewed due to the angle of how the videos were captured. Also, the
starting points for the carts may have been slightly different on each point and may not have
stayed constant, as a human hand was pulling them back to the same point each time. However,
this pullback may have been a centimeter or so off. The camera also comes in here, as if it is on a
tilt, the initial point may have been marked differently and all the other points may be off by a
bit. The crash also may have shook the lab a bit as well. Since the carts collided at the end of the
experiments, the crash may have disturbed the other objects in the area and made the rubber band
a bit weaker.
Data

Acceleration (m/s^2)

Mass (kg

Trial 1

.1)

Mass

Trial 2
No

Mass

Mass = cart with

No mass = cart with no

changing mass

mass changes

Avg. for mass

Avg. no mass

Trial 3
No

Mass

No

Mass

Mass

Mass

0.0

2.318 2.318

2.861 2.861

2.749 2.749

2.642.590

2.642.590

.5

1.188 4.449

1.340 4.594

1.380 4.593

1.307.290

4.545.522

1.0

1.168 4.119

1.411 4.405

1.313 4.369

1.297.290

4.300.262

1.5

0.905 4.178

1.051 4.289

1.048 4.288

1.001.050

4.251.234

2.0

0.696 4.642

.713

.683

.695.700

4.634.630

4.532

4.728

These are all the values for the acceleration of both carts. The seconds cart acceleration is also included.

This is an example graph for the control for Trial One.

This is another example graph for Trial 1 of the .5kg cart. The slope is the average acceleration
of the cart.
Conclusion
Through the data that I have collected, a clearly linear relationship can be seen. As the
mass of the object increased, the velocity of the object decreased by decent amounts. The
relationship would be written as:
1
M
a
This is an inverse relationship and is evident through the data. Since Fnet is equivalent to mass
times the acceleration, it is highly probable that a majority of the force turned into force normal.
This reduced the value of Fnet, and lowered the value of acceleration since the mass of the cart
was consistent (relatively) for all of the trials done.
The lab itself had many strengths and weaknesses. The first strength I saw was its
simplicity in the setup. It did not take much to make the lab set up to attain data. Also, the data
given from it is very simple to analyze. The first standout that you need to calculate is velocity,
and from their all of the other data can be derived. In my opinion, the experiment is also very
unique in the fact that it uses elastic energy in order to make 2 carts move. This adds a more

different kind of starting speed, and adds another force which may have been responsible for the
reduction in acceleration. Weaknesses in the lab were how the data was taken. It was very clear
that setting up my phone to take the videos for the lab was in itself a problem, as it was very
difficult to hold steady. This causes mild problems while analyzing the videos, and may have
changed the scale of the meter sticks. Also, while I had previously stated that the rubber band
was helpful, at times it was a little too unpredictable in how far it stretched. Both of these issues
may have been fixable if a tripod of some sort was used to steady the camera, and if a more
reliable rubber band was used. Overall, this lab was extremely helpful in determining how mass
and acceleration were related, and if I were to do it again, I may pick some more reliable data
taking devices.