🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →

HomeClass Notes1,200,000US530,000

PHY 132 Lecture 9: lab 9

82 views9 pages

15 Sep 2015

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Abstract: this experiment looked to investigate the electromotive force, as a function of time, induced in a solenoid by running a current through the surrounding, larger solenoid. This value was then checked with a theoretical value predicted by faraday"s law. From the experiment it was found that the theoretical value for the was 2. 63 x 10-5 5. 06 10 7. V emf f yielded a 21. 29% error for the sine. From part 2 calculations, it was found that the theoretical value for was 3. 72 10 3 7. 16 10 5. This value left an error of 2. 42% for the. Overall the lab was successful in trying to compare electromotive forces that occur in solenoids. The larger percent errors could be due to a lack of parallelism within the model or even due to due geometry errors due to the cylinder not being exact in terms of radius all through out. These ideas are further discussed in the discussion section.

Related textbook solutions

Physics: Principles with Applications

7th Edition, 2013

ISBN: 9780321625922

Related Documents

PHY 132 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Rlc Circuit, Resonance, Angular Frequency

PHY 132 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Rlc Circuit, Capacitor, Inductor

PHY 132 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Experiment, Coconut Teaszer

Related Questions

Could you please proofread and correct scientifically andgrammatically my work, thanks ^_^

The percentage error was found to be 0.186% and 6.66%respectively.

This implies that the predicted value of the freefall accelerationis fairly accurate while the predicated value of deceleration isnot as much. The encountered errors were due to severalexperimental and human limitation was that the experiment involved.The experimental limitation was due to the uncertainty of theclinometer which was Â± 0.5o.

I.e. In our calculation, a difference of 0.5o can lead to adifference of 40 - 80 cm in height as shown below:

The human limitations was due to the human eye being unable todetect the exact point on the track at which the gondoladecelerates. This is because the braking happened very quickly.This adds an uncertainty to the location of deceleration when theangels are being measured.

In addition, the human ability cannot decide on the exact period oftime at which the gondola freefalls or decelerates. This is due tothe human reaction speed being unable to exactly determine thestart time of the momentary freefall and deceleration. The timetaken for humans to react cannot be measured thus it cannot besubtracted from the findings to get an accurate timing.

All of these limitations that have affected the accuracy of theresults could be avoided to some extent by marking the exact zonesrequired on the track of the giant drop as well as using anelectronic angle measurer to measure the angles . Additionally, theusage of an electronic timer to measure periods of the freefall anddeceleration is also suggested.

During the analysis, finding an average to the deceleration in theaccelerometer reading (using Logger Pro) was only estimated usingthe human naked eye. This is because an average could not be takenelectronically. Thus, there is also some uncertainty involved inthe theoretical value.

NOTE:

The value for freefall acceleration obtained from thevideo-analysis technique was 9.754 Â± 0.3237 m/s2. 9.754 m/s2 has apercentage error of :
0.469%

This value indicates it is fairly accurate and can be used as aconforming result to the theoretical value. The error involved isdue to the fact that the video was shaking, thus plotting thevelocity/ time graph of the gondola at different times wasnegatively affected; although the axes was roughly re-set at everyframe.