Physics Cantilever Lab

In myrmecophilous Assessment natural philosophy Lab (SL) Cantilever Flexion Cherno Okafor Mr. Ebrahimi SPH4U7 October 21st, 2012 Introduction Purpose The purpose of this physical science Lab is to investigate what factors determine the amount of flexion of the protrude. Hence, the objective is to create a kind amongst the distance of a stick out, which may turn some insight into the physics of cantilevers. Hypothesis If one increases the continuance of a cantilever, one would expect there to be an increase in dissimilarity/flexion of the cantilever.Similarly, if one increases the plentitude of the load, one would expect there to be an increase in the diversion/flexion of the cantilever. In addition, I call in that pro doweryality get out also occur in the midst of the independent and dependent variables. If the length of the cantilever manifold, it is expected that the flexion/deflexion would also double. Similarly, if the big bucks of the load doubles, the deflexi on/flexion would also double. Variables In this investigation, I chose ii variables the length of the cantilever and the mass of the load.First, I chose to measure the effect of the length of the cantilever on its warp when loaded with a constant mass because I knew from prior experience that there was some relationship amidst the two variables. * Independent Variable The length of the cantilever in metres, which provide be varied by changing the length of the yardstick operation as a cantilever that extends over the edge of a prorogue. This lead be measured indirectly by measuring the length of the portion of the yardstick non in use and subtracting that from the entire length of the yardstick.The another(prenominal)(a) independent variable is the mass loaded onto the cantilever, which will be controlled by signly using the homogeneous mass for each trial, then for the mo part, changing the mass of the load by increasing and decreasing the mass, and subsequently inve stigating what the relationship is between load mass and cantilever length. The initial location of the mass in relation to the entire yardstick will be controlled by placing the mass at the alike end of the yardstick for each trial and marking the flexion/deflexion. Dependent Variable The buckle/flexion of the cantilever in metres. This will be measured indirectly by measuring the initial height of the bottom of the cantilever with no mass added (which is equal to the height of the table) and the new height of the bottom 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 treat My experiment is divided into two parts experiment 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 initiative table reflects the alliance between the deflection/flexion of the cantilever and the mass of the load and the indorse table reflects the relationship between the flexion of the cantilever and the length of the cantilever. i) consanguinity between the deflection/flexion of the cantilever and the load mass (5 trials) bow 1-Experiment A Factor/Variable struggle 1 runnel 2 runnel 3 Trial 4 Trial 5 Trial 6 Trial 7 Trial 8 Trial 9 Trial 10 Trial 11 Load (g) 0 cytosine 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 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 graph this relationWe can larn that there is a linear relationship between flexio n 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 summit 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 see 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 thi s time, it reaches a point (20cm, 10cm, 0cm) where the deflection stays the same even if the cantilever length changes. Conclusion and Evaluation Conclusion The observational 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 rends 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 bigger 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. The fo rces get large and the repelling force which is bigger pushes the particles away from each other.So they are not disordered. We can also set up that they obey Hookes law. Evaluation From the results that I got after performing the experiment, I can say that the experiment worked kind of well. In the analyzing evidence section, I can draw the conclusion that the first table reflects a linear straight line graph and the blink of an eye table reflects a curved graph. On this basis, I can say that the experiment worked out pretty well. I think the data I obtained was accurate since I did indeed try to graph these relationships.A possible service to this experiment should be repeating the experiment twice or to a greater extent if possible. Then I would get the average results in a table and in this way, my results would be even more accurate. General Conclusion The everyday conclusion we can draw from this experiment is that as the mass that we establish on the cantilever increas es, the deflection increases too until the elastic 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.