Physics Cantilever Lab

fencesitter Assessment Physics Lab (SL) Cantilever Flexion Cherno Okafor Mr. Ebrahimi SPH4U7 October 21st, 2012 Introduction persona The purpose of this Physics Lab is to investigate what factors determine the amount of flection of the project. Hence, the objective is to establish a relationship betwixt the distance of a stick out, which may give roughly insight into the physics of cantilevers. Hypothesis If nonpareil gains the length of a cantilever, one would birth there to be an increase in aside/ flexion of the cantilever.Similarly, if one increases the band of the shoot down, one would expect there to be an increase in the excursion/flexion of the cantilever. In addition, I predict that proportionality allow also occur between the independent and dependent variables. If the length of the cantilever doubles, it is expected that the flexion/deflexion would also double. Similarly, if the mickle of the cargo doubles, the deflexion/flexion would also double. Variable s In this investigation, I chose deuce variables the length of the cantilever and the mass of the commove.First, I chose to round the effect of the length of the cantilever on its deflection when loaded with a constant mass because I knew from prior experience that there was some relationship between the two variables. * Independent Variable The length of the cantilever in metres, which will be varied by changing the length of the yardstick functioning as a cantilever that extends over the boundary contrast of a table. This will be mensural indirectly by amount the length of the portion of the yardstick not in use and subtr playing that from the undefiled length of the yardstick.The other independent variable is the mass loaded onto the cantilever, which will be controlled by initially using the equal mass for apiece(prenominal) trial, then for the second part, changing the mass of the load by increase and decreasing the mass, and subsequently investigating what the relati onship is between load mass and cantilever length. The initial location of the mass in relation to the full yardstick will be controlled by placing the mass at the same end of the yardstick for apiece trial and marking the flexion/deflexion. interdependent Variable The deflection/flexion of the cantilever in metres. This will be measured indirectly by measuring the initial round top of the rear of the cantilever with no mass added (which is equal to the height of the table) and the new height of the diffuse of the cantilever after each trial, which will be measured with mass added. Hence, the difference between these heights is equal to the deflection/flexion of the cantilever. The material and other physical properties of the cantilever will be controlled by using the same yardstick as a cantilever for each trial.Data Collection and Processing My prove is divided into two parts try out A (involving the relationship between flexion and the mass of the load) and experiment B (involving the relationship between the flexion and the length of the cantilever). Below are two tables in which I have recorded the data which I obtained during the experiment. The starting signal table reflects the Relationship between the deflection/flexion of the cantilever and the mass of the load and the second table reflects the relationship between the flexion of the cantilever and the length of the cantilever. i) Relationship between the deflection/flexion of the cantilever and the load mass (5 trials) duck 1-Experiment A Factor/Variable run 1 mental testing 2 mental testing 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Trial 9 Trial 10 Trial 11 cargo (g) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 gm Without Load (cm) 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 With Load (cm) 96 92. 7 90 87. 6 85 82. 2 79. 5 77 74. 6 71. 5 69. 5 Flexion (cm) 0 3. 3 6 8. 4 11 13. 8 16. 5 19 21. 4 24. 5 26. 5 Now, I will chart this relationWe can conform to that there is a linear relationship between fl exion and the load mass. (ii) Relationship between the deflection/flexion and the length of the cantilever (5 trials) Table 2- Experiment B Factor/Variable Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Trial 9 Trial 10 Length of cantilever (cm) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 top without Load (cm) 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 95. 5 Height with Load (cm) 69. 5 76. 5 82. 5 87. 4 90. 9 93. 2 94. 5 95. 5 95. 95. 5 Flexion (cm) 26 19 13 8. 1 4. 6 2. 3 1 0 0 0 Now I will graph this relation We can train that there is an exponential/power relationship (curved) between the flexion and the cantilever length. Analyzing Evidence Patterns 1) In experiment A, the relationship between the flexion and the load is proportional as predicted. As the load increases, the flexion increases as well. As the load doubles from 200g to 400g, the deflection almost doubles too. 2) In experiment B, the deflection increases as the length of the cantilever increases.But this time, it reaches a point (20cm, 10cm, 0cm) where the deflection stays the same even if the cantilever length changes. Conclusion and military rating Conclusion The experimental results agree with my prediction/hypothesis because I predicted that in experiment A, the deflection is proportional to the mass of the load. In experiment B, I predicted that flexion/deflexion would increase as the length of the cantilever increases. As the load and the length of the cantilever increases, then the deflection/flexion increases.This happens because of forces acting on the particles in the cantilever. At the top of the cantilever, particles are pulled apart proportionately to the load because they are in tension. The forces between particles increase. However, the attractive force is big than the repelling force in the particles so therefore, the particles are held together. The particles at the bottom will be pushed together proportionately to the load because they are in compression. T he forces get larger and the repelling force which is bigger pushes the particles away from each other.So they are not disordered. We can also recount that they obey Hookes law. Evaluation From the results that I got after performing the experiment, I can say that the experiment worked quite well. In the analyzing evidence section, I can blow the conclusion that the first table reflects a linear straight line graph and the second table reflects a curved graph. On this basis, I can say that the experiment worked out pretty well. I call in the data I obtained was accurate since I did indeed try to graph these relationships.A possible improvement to this experiment should be repeating the experiment in two ways or more if possible. Then I would get the average results in a table and in this way, my results would be even more accurate. ecumenical Conclusion The general conclusion we can draw from this experiment is that as the mass that we put on the cantilever increases, the defl ection increases too until the springy point is reached where the cantilever cannot hold any more masses so it breaks. Also, we can see from the second graph that the larger the length of the cantilever, the large the flexion is.