Experiment M-2

Measurement of the Acceleration of an Object Due to

Gravity

Performed 9/26/08

Group #3

Ryan Spicer

John Burke

Huytien Tran
1) Background

This lab was designed to experimentally determine the value of g, the

acceleration of a mass due to gravitational attraction to the earth. An inclined air
track was used to measure the time it took two gliders of different masses to travel
a specific distance, and the value of their acceleration was used to find the value of
g. The air track was used because it provided a practically frictionless surface, and
friction would have interfered with the experimental results.

On planet earth, g is a constant that varies slightly depending on elevation.

Using Newton’s Second Law, the attractive force between a mass and the earth,
known as the weight, is equal to . On the air track, the component of the weight

along the plane of the track can be mathematically described as , where θ

is the angle of elevation of the track. Since according to Newton’s Second Law, the
Force of the weight along the plane of the track Fs and the acceleration on the track
as are related by the equation , the following equation can be derived to
relate as to g:

Since the mass is released from rest at the top of the air track, the displacement S
along the track over time t can be defined as:

Substituting for as and solving for g yields:

To make the experimental measurements a little easier, sinθ can be replaced by

H/D, or the height H of the raised side of the track divided by the distance D
between the legs of the track. Applying this relationship to the equation above
yields
2) Procedure

The apparatus used for the experiment was a Stull-Ealing Linear Air Track
fitted with two Posco photogate sensors attached to a Posco Photogate Timer with
Memory model ME-9215A. The apparatus was set up as laid out in the diagram
below:

The apparatus resembled the images below:

Air Track with Glider: Photogate:

Before doing anything with the air track, the air supply was turned on and
allowed to run for approximately 5 minutes to ensure that the track was free of any
debris that could have caused friction or damaged the track. While this was
happening, the masses of the two gliders (#1 and #2) were measured on a triple-
beam balance.
 After the track was ready, the gliders were placed on the track, without any
spacers underneath, and their movement was observed. Any preferential drift would
have indicated that the track was not level and required adjustment. The distance D
between the legs of the track was measured with a meter stick, and the height H of
the two spacers to be used was measured with a vernier caliper.

To begin the first experimental trial, the single leg side of the air track was
raised and Spacer #1 was placed underneath it. Glider #1 was then placed on the
bottom of the track so that it was resting against the spring bumper. After verifying
that the glider was just past the point of tripping the bottom photogate (indicated
by a red light on the gate), s0 was measured on the centimeter scale on the track.
The bottom front corner of the glider was used as the standard reference point for
all measurements of s. s1 was measured at the point at the top of the track where
the glider tripped the top photogate with its leading edge.

With the photogate timer set to pulse mode, the glider was positioned at the
top of the track so that it was tripping the top photogate. The glider was then
pushed back up the track with a finger pressing against its leading edge until the
light on the photogate went out. The reset button was pressed on the timer, and
then the finger was pulled away, allowing the glider to travel down the track. The
photogates and timer thus made a very precise calculation of the time it took for
the glider to travel down the track from s1 to s0 . Several practice runs were
performed before data recording began, and then 5 trials were recorded.

In order to perform the experiment with Glider #2, Spacer #1 was left in
place while Glider #1 was replaced with Glider #2. New measurements were taken
of s0 and s1, again using the bottom front corner of the glider as a reference point.
The experiment then continued as laid out for the trials with Glider #1. After 5 trials
were recorded with Glider #2, the glider was removed from the track and Spacer
#1 was switched out for Spacer #2. 5 trials were then recorded using each glider
following the same procedure as before.

Data 1
Data 2
Data 3
4) Sample Calculations

Distance traveled (s) for Case 1

Measured value of g for Case 2

Final average estimate of g

Percent error in estimate of g

Chart 1: Calculated value g vs. mass

5) Results, Discussion, and Errors

 The calculated value of g obtained from the experiment was very close to the
actual value of g as measured at sea level in New York (9.803 m/s2). The percent
error in g was only 0.582%. Given the setup of the experiment, it is not surprising to
see a positive percentage error. Since the glider had to be released from a point
somewhat behind s1 in order to ensure that the photogate was not tripped before
the glider had actually been let go, the glider had to have some small amount of
velocity before it actually passed s1. This increase in velocity would result in a
smaller value of t, which would increase the calculated value of g.

Conversely, a negative error would not have been surprising either. While the
air track was supposed to be frictionless, it was evident from light scraping sounds
heard while the gliders were traveling that there was some friction in the system.
This friction would have reduced the velocity of the glider, increasing t, and
therefore decreasing g. It is likely that the error induced by friction was canceled
out by the error resulting from releasing the glider slightly behind s1.

It was also discovered at the end of the last trial, and after the spacer had
been removed from under the track, that the air track had come slightly off level at
some point in the experiment, as a glider left on the supposedly level track drifted
slightly toward the bottom end. This small error in the leveling of the track would
have increased the glider’s velocity, therefore decreasing t and increasing g. Since
the calculated result of g turned out to be very accurate, it is likely that this error
was either very insignificant or it helped to further cancel out the negative error
resulting from friction on the track. The latter scenario seems more likely than the
former, as there appeared to be a fair amount of friction in the system judging from
the scraping sounds heard from the apparatus.

[here, I would add the potential source of error of position and timing with the
release of the finger]

Less significant potential sources of error could have been various

environmental factors such as temperature, and wind currents. The friction in the
air track system may have changed slightly over the course of the experiment as
the metal in both the track and the gliders contracted or expanded with
temperature changes. Wind may also have played a factor in the experiment, as
any air current passing over the glider could have altered its acceleration slightly.
For instance, if a person walked past the apparatus at a brisk pace during a trial,
there may have been enough of a force imparted on the glider by the wind they
generated to have a meaningful impact on the recorded data. The glider also would
have experience some friction from air even if there were no moving air currents
around it, but given the relatively low velocity of the experiment and the relatively
large mass of the glider, this probably was negligible.

It is important to note the information present by Chart 1: Calculated value of

g vs. mass. From reading the chart, it is reasonable to conclude that mass does not
affect the value of g. Thus the acceleration due to gravity is the same on all objects
regardless of their mass. Running this experiment with two different gliders of
different mass helped further illustrate this point, as both gliders moved down the
track at roughly the same speeds at the same angle of the track.

6) Conclusions

The calculated value of g obtained from this experiment was very close to the
actual value of g. A value of 9.86 m/s2 was calculated, which was only a 0.581%
error from the actual value of 9.803 m/s2. Thus, the experimental method used was
very effective in producing the expected result.
7) Questions

1. If you measure g by dropping a mass straight down, say from the

Leaning Tower of Pisa, what experimental problems would you have
encountered in performing the experiment from the tower rather than
here in the lab with the inclined air track? Ignore air friction.

Dropping the mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa would present a few
experimental challenges. Getting a very accurate measurement of the time it took
the mass to fall would be more difficult, since the two points in space that would be
boundaries of the time measurement are so far away from each other. An observer
would have to be able to see exactly when the mass was released or exactly when
the mass landed, and those two events would be a good distance from each other.
Using an electronic timing system would be much more difficult since the landing
spot of the mass wouldn’t be completely predictable. A slight cross-wind would be
able to blow the mass far enough off course that it could miss the timing sensor at
the bottom entirely.

Another complication with the tower experiment would be finding a precise

value for s. Since the tower is leaning, there would probably have to be some
trigonometric calculations made to find the vertical distance from a point on the
tower to the ground, and accuracy would be lost. Also, if the mass doesn’t land in
exactly the right spot, it may fall onto a spot on the ground that is slightly higher or
lower than the intended spot, which would increase or decrease the actual distance
the mass fell.

2. Assume the track is not level at the beginning of the experiment.

Further, assume that what you thought to be a level track was in fact
slightly tipped in the same direction as your deliberate tipping via the
spacers during the experiment. Explain the effect on the results.

If the track was tipped in the same direction as the tipping induced by the
spacers, the calculated value of g would be higher than expected. A tipping of the
track in that direction would increase the velocity of the glider since it would be
traveling down a slightly steeper slope. This would reduce t, and therefore increase
g since t is in the denominator of the equation to find g. Another way of looking at
the problem is that a tipping of the track would mean you are running your trial with
a higher value of H than you think you are using. Since the value of H you would use
in the equation to calculate g would be lower than what H actually was, you would
end up with a higher g.