ANALYSIS

Experiment 101 tackles about the Resolution of forces or resolution of

vectors. For this certain performance, our group used a force table, 4 pieces of
super pulley with clamp and mass hanger, 1 set of slotted mass, and a piece of
protractor. [see Figure 1.1] We are tasked to determine the resultant force of
concurrent forces using the experimental (trial and error) method, given with three
vectors with varying values. Two trials will be done with a different set of given
values. In this experiment the basic equation will be

Fn

F1

F2

F3

++

Fn

=0

Figure 1.1

In trial 1, we were given with three amounts: 25g at 15, 50g at 75, and 75g
at 300. Our group had manipulated the position of the pulley at its correct place
and hang weights on it as stated in the specified quantities. We take in to
consideration the weight of the mass hanger which was thought to be 5g. We added
this 5g to the set of mass to come up with our final mass. We had to use the digital
weighing scale to supply the necessary mass. Through trial and error, we were able

to come up with our measurements. Figure 1.2 shows how the group tried to
balance the forces or masses on the force table.

Figure 1.2

After several tests, we were able to come up with our results. Table 1.1
contains the information gathered from the experiment. Those underlined below
are the values we observed throughout the process.
Table 1.1

ACTUAL VALUES
F1

TRIAL 1
25 g

TRIAL 2
60 g

F2

50 g

40 g

F3

75 g

40 g

F4

78.6 g

102.2 g

15

75

60

300

300

174

180

For Trial 1, the ring became stable at the center at a mass of 78.6g and in the
location of 174. Meanwhile for trial 2, Figure 1.2 shows the resultant mass as
100.4g and a bearing of 179.

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.3 illustrates the force table for the second trial. It is being portrayed
here the three given forces with their corresponding position or direction and the
resultant force. The resultant force was identified by moving the pulley at some
time and manipulating the weights in the hanger. At the end, the ring was observed
to be at the center at a resultant force of 102.2g at a direction of 180.
For the second way of finding the resultant, the analytical method was used,
specifically the use of components. In this technique, for every vector we must
identify its x-component and y-component. Then, the collected values for xcomponent will be added up, the same thing with the values of the y-component.
The magnitude can be solved by getting the square root of the sum of the squares
of the total x-component and the total y-component; while, the angle can be

answered by solving the tangent of the ratio of the total y-component and the total
x-component.
In the first trial, 25 cos 15, 50 cos 75, and 75 cos 300 were the data for
the x-component. The numbers for the y-component were 25 sin 15, 50 sin 75,
and 75 sin 300. We evaluated these members using our learning in trigonometry.
These figures were then totaled. The two records were used to arrive at the value of
the magnitude of the resultant force which was about 75.2813g. Getting the tangent
of the ratio of the two numbers yields the angle of the resultant which is at
172.2244.
The second trial was done the same way, but with a new set of given values
to work on. 60 cos 0, 40 cos 60, and 40 cos 300 are the x-components. The ycomponent is comprised of 60 sin 0, 40 sin 60, and 40 sin 300 values. The total
numbers were 100.00 (x-component) and 0.00 (y-component). The magnitude and
direction were solved and are said to be 100.00g and 180, respectively. The results
for the component method were tallied in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2
F4

ACTUAL VALUES

TRIAL 1
75.2813 g

TRIAL 2
100.00 g

172.2244

180

The polygon method, a graph was used as the third method of checking. In a
xy-plane, given forces will be graphed with arrowheads which will signify their
direction. The arrows representing the forces are connected head-to-tail. The arrow
that finishes the polygon is said to be the resultant force which can be observed as
having its tail on the tail of the first vector added. The final answer can be solved

not by the use of mathematical computations but rather making use of the
measuring devices like rulers and protractors.
The graph for trial 1 is done by using the specified magnitude and direction.
Analyzing very well the data will hasten the graphing. A scale of 10g = 1cm was
used in this method. One stated measurement was 25g at 15, we know that this is
in the first quadrant having 15 as the angle between its vector and the x-axis, and
having a length of 2.5 cm. Same thing with your 50g at 75, placed in the first
quadrant, a distance of 50 cm, 75 from your positive x-axis. After graphing the
three forces the head of the last force was connected to the tail of the first force
which is located at the origin. This is the resultant vector. It is then measured and
found to be having a magnitude of 74g and a direction of -9 or 171. 171 and 9
are both acceptable values since they are said to be co-terminal angles.
For trial 2, same thing has to be done; proper analysis of the given and graph
them. The values 60g at 0, 40g at 60, and 40g at 300 gave the resultant force
with a tail at the origin and the head heading towards the positive x-axis. The
measured values for the resultant were 99g at 0or 180. The following are the
values gathered by polygon method:
Table 1.3

ACTUAL VALUES
F4

TRIAL 1
74 g

TRIAL 2
99 g

171

180

Included in this experiment was to solve for the percent error, which is just
the absolute value of the difference between the actual value and the other value

divided by the actual and then multiplied by 100%. This practically gives one a
value of how accurate the measurements are.

Chart 1.1

Percentage Error

Trial 2
Component
Polygon

Trial 1

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

This chart depicts the accuracy and precision of the two methods. Using this
as a basis, we can see that error is bigger when using polygon method rather than
the component method. Thus in this specific situation, it can be said that it more
efficient to use component method than polygon method.

CONCLUSION
This lab activity familiarized us with forces as vector quantities and made us
understand the addition of forces. We have known that various methods can be
utilized in solving resultant forces such as the graphical and analytical method.
Each method has its own functionality which sets one apart from the other.
Analytical method involves mathematical formulas and calculations, whereas the
graphical method has scaled drawings.
I can conclude that balance and stability can be attained by forces and their
direction. These forces and directions must act at a precise place and at an accurate
magnitude in order to reach the state called as equilibrium. In this experiment,
equilibrium is met when the ring is seen at the center.
Basing it on the results of our activity, it is more efficient to use component
method than the polygon method. Fewer discrepancies from the actual value are
found when solving forces and vectors analytically.
This experiment proved to us as well that no matter what method or
technique one apply in determining the resultant value (force/vector), one will be
arriving at close values of just few errors.
This experimentation may not be that accurate since there are few factors
which affected the results. First one in observing the actual value, the force table
must be laid in a flat surface to avoid any errors with the position and mass of the
hangers. When using analytical method, make sure to round off your values
correctly. And for the graphical method, there will always be errors with measuring
but strive to make it more accurate with the right use of tools such as protractors
and rulers.