Investigating the effect

of different voltage on
the acceleration of an
object in motion

Abstract

This lab was performed in order to conclude the relationship between the
increase of force and acceleration. Every acceleration from 5 trials and 3 distances
(1.5 m, 3.0 m, 4.5 m) was calculated from each voltage (the force) 3V and 6V. The
credibility of the lab was secured by having more than 30 trials in total and
keeping all the conditions fair as possible for every trial. Based on the data, we
deduced that as force increases, so does the acceleration.
RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effect of the different voltage on the rate of acceleration
on the propeller driven physics cart?

HYPOTHESIS: If the voltage of the cart increases, then the acceleration will increase as well,
because from the equation A = F /M , where A is acceleration, F is force, and M is mass, if the
Force (the voltage in this case) gets stronger, the acceleration proportionally gets bigger.

VARIABLES:

Variables
Independent Variables How to Control

Voltage (V) The voltage will be changed by

3V changing the number of batteries. 3V
6V will need 2 batteries, 6V will need 4.

Dependent Variable How to Measure

Acceleration (m/s2) After gathering the data for time and

velocity, I will calculate the values of
acceleration by using specific
equations.

Control Variable How to Control

Wind (the experiment took place
outdoor)
Floor - the floor was not fla but a bit
angled. At some places, the carts
moved by itself even though we had
not turned the propeller on.
Make a wall with objects (e.x.
Computer, box) that will block the
wind affecting the carts acceleration
and velocity.
Do all the experiments and the trials
at the same place.
MATERIALS:

Item Quantity Used

-Newton balance (scale) 1

-propeller driven physics carts 1

-double(AA) 1.5 batteries 4

-tape measures 1

-stop watches 1

PROCEDURE:
1. Remove a clear area on the floor in the classroom for the carts to be able to move at
least 4.5 meters.
2. Measure out the 4.5 m on the floor and draw a line with whiteboard marker. (this will
be erased at the end of the investigation by your group).
3. Make two more lines, one at 1.5 m from the start line and the next at 3m.
4. Take the weight ( with a Newtons balance/scale-record this in Newtons-this is a force of
mass x gravity) of your cart plus two batteries and two plugs (replacing two of the
batteries). Your voltage now is 1.5 x 2 = 3V.
5. Place your cart on the start line with timers ready.
6. Turn off your propeller and time the cart to the first line of 1.5 meters and then onto 3
meters and to the finish line at 4.5 m. Record your three times in relationship to the
voltage provided to the cart. Repeat this run for a total of five trials. Later you will take
the average to get a value closer to the accurate value. *More trials reduce the random
error in your investigation! IBDP likes a minimum of 5 trials to average. In real life
investigations sometimes hundreds even thousands of trials are performed.
7. Next place four batteries in the cart and take the weight (Force) with the Newton scale.
8. Repeat the procedure to gather the three times (with five trials) recording with
relationship to the new mass.
 EQUATIONS:

Average Time Final Velocity Velocity Acceleration Force

d 2d d Vf Vi
t= v t Vi =Vf V = t = F = ma
Tf Ti

(Original:
d = 12 (V f + V i )t )

DATA SECTION:

Qualitative Data
*Surface is the place where the experiment is held; the road the cart travels.

- Wind blows
- The surface is not flat and is a bit angled.
- The surface is not rough, but very smoothe and kind of slippery.
- There is a little hole on the surface.

Raw Table - Weight of the Cart

Weight of the Cart

3V - 2 Batteries 6V - 4 Batteries

6N (600g) 7N (700g)

Raw Table - Time Spent Traveling: 3V (6N)

Time Spent Travelling
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 7.49 8.72 10.2

 2 7.18 8.89 10.5

3 7.61 9.21 11.1

4 7.12 9.07 10.8

5 7.53 8.96 10.9

Raw Table - Time Spent Traveling: 6V

Time Spent Travelling
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 6.31 7.49 9.24

2 6.57 7.64 9.21

3 6.23 7.79 9.13

4 6.18 7.92 8.93

5 6.42 7.77 9.02

Processed Data - Average Time Spent Traveling: 3V (6N)

Time Spent Travelling
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 7.49 8.72 10.2

2 7.18 8.89 10.5

3 7.61 9.21 11.1

4 7.12 9.07 10.8

5 7.53 8.96 10.9

Average 7.39 8.97 10.70

 Processed Data - Average Time Spent Traveling: 6V (7N)

Time Spent Travelling

Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 6.31 7.49 9.24

2 6.57 7.64 9.21

3 6.23 7.79 9.13

4 6.18 7.92 8.93

5 6.42 7.77 9.02

Average 6.34 7.72 9.11

Processed Data - Velocity: 3V (6N)

Velocity (m/s)
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 0.200 0.344 0.441

2 0.201 0.337 0.428

3 0.197 0.326 0.405

4 0.211 0.331 0.416

5 0.199 0.335 0.413

Average 0.202 0.335 0.421

Final Velocity (m/s)

Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 0.401 0.688 0.882

2 0.418 0.675 0.857

 3 0.394 0.651 0.811

4 0.421 0.662 0.833

5 0.398 0.670 0.826

Average 0.406 0.669 0.842

Processed Data - Velocity: 6V (7N)

Velocity (m/s)
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 0.238 0.400 0.487

2 0.228 0.393 0.489

3 0.241 0.385 0.493

4 0.243 0.379 0.504

5 0.234 0.386 0.499

Average 0.237 0.389 0.494

Final Velocity (m/s)

Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

1 0.475 0.801 0.974

2 0.457 0.785 0.977

3 0.482 0.770 0.986

4 0.485 0.758 1.01

5 0.467 0.772 0.998

Average 0.473 0.777 0.989

Processed Data - Acceleration: 3V (6N)

 Acceleration (m/s2)
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

Trial 1 0.0535 0.0789 0.0864

Trial 2 0.0582 0.0759 0.0816

Trial 3 0.0512 0.0707 0.0730

Trial 4 0.0591 0.0730 0.0771

Trial 5 0.0529 0.0748 0.0758

Average 0.0550 0.0747 0.0788

Processed Data - Acceleration: 6V (7N)

Acceleration (m/s2)
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

Trial 1 0.0753 0.107 0.105

Trial 2 0.0696 0.103 0.106

Trial 3 0.0774 0.0988 0.108

Trial 4 0.0785 0.0957 0.113

Trial 5 0.0723 0.0994 0.111

Average 0.0746 0.101 0.109

Processed Data - Force: 3V (6N)

Force (N)
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

Trial 1 0.0321 0.0473 0.0518

Trial 2 0.0349 0.0455 0.0490

 Trial 3 0.0307 0.0424 0.0438

Trial 4 0.0355 0.0438 0.0463

Trial 5 0.0317 0.0449 0.0455

Average 0.0330 0.0448 0.0473

Processed Data - Force: 6V (7N)

Force (N)
Trials\Distance(m) 1.5 3.0 4.5

Trial 1 0.0527 0.0749 0.0735

Trial 2 0.0487 0.0721 0.0742

Trial 3 0.0541 0.0692 0.0756

Trial 4 0.0550 0.0670 0.0791

Trial 5 0.0506 0.0696 0.0777

Average 0.0522 0.0706 0.0760

ANALYSIS SECTION: Calculations and graphing

Sample Calculations
*If not specified, all sample calculations are based on the data from
Distance: 1.5 (m)
Force: 3V
Trial Number:1

Average Time Force: 3V

Distance: 1.5 m
(7.49 (s) +7.18 (s) +7.61 (s) +7.12 (s) +7.53 (s)) / 5 = 7.39 (s)

Average Velocity
Distance/Force 3V 6V
 1.5 (m) 1.5 (m) / 7.39 (s) 0.203 1.5 (m) / 6.34 (s) 0.237
(m/s) (m/s2)

3.0 (m) 3.0 (m) / 8.97 (s) 0.334 3.0 (m) / 7.72 (s) 0.389
(m/s) (m/s2)

4.5 (m) 4.5 (m) / 10.7 (s) 0.421 4.5 (m) / 9.11 (s) 0.494
(m/s) (m/s2)

2d
Final Velocity
t Vi =Vf

(Original: d = 12 (V f + V i )t )

2 1.5 (m) / 7.49 (s) - 0 = 0.401 (m/s)

Average Acceleration Vf Vi
= Tf Ti

Distance/Force 3V 6V

1.5 (m) {0.406 (m/s) - 0 (m/s)} / {0.473 (m/s) - 0 (m/s)} /

{7.39 (s) - 0 (s)} 0.0550 {7.39 (s) - 0 (s)} 0.0330
(m/s2) (m/s2)

3.0 (m) {0.669 (m/s) - 0 (m/s)} / {0.777 (m/s) - 0 (m/s)} /

{8.97 (s) - 0 (s)} 0.0747 {8.97 (s) - 0 (s)} 0.0448
(m/s2) (m/s2)

4.5 (m) {0.842 (m/s) - 0 (m/s)} / {0.989 (m/s) - 0 (m/s)} /

{10.7 (s) - 0 (s)} 0.0788 {10.7 (s) - 0 (s)} 0.0473
(m/s2) (m/s2)

Force F = ma
3V, 1.5 m, Trial 1:
F = 0.6 (kg) 0.0535 (m/s2) = 0.0321 (N)

6V, 1.5 m, Trial 1:

0.7 (kg) 0.0753 = 0.0527 (N)
Graph: 1

Graph: 2

EVALUATION:
 My hypothesis was If the voltage of the cart increases, then the acceleration will
increase as well, because from the equation A = F /M , where A is acceleration, F is force,
and M is mass, if the Force (the voltage in this case) gets stronger, the acceleration
proportionally gets bigger. My hypothesis was clearly supported by the datas collected.
Based on the data extracted from the experiment, we converted the times it took for the cart
to reach a certain distance into acceleration. Graph:1 - Average Acceleration for Every Trial,
shows the average acceleration at each distance in both 3V and 6V. In every distance, the
average acceleration of 6V line graph is higher than that of 3V. When the cart ran 1.5 (m), 3V
force resulted in 0.0550 m/s2 while 6V force resulted in 0.0746 m/s2. At 3 (m), 3Vs
acceleration was 0.0747 m/s2 and 6Vs was 0.101m/s2 . In 4.5 m, 3V achieved 0.0788m/s2 and
6V achieved 0.109m/s2. In every distance the difference between the two was largely big, and
every distance 6V resulted a faster acceleration. Starting from 1.5 (m) to 3.0 (m), 4.5 (m), the
difference in acceleration from the two voltage (force) was 0.196 m/s2, 0.263 m/s2 and 0.302
m/s2. We can see the 6V cart is getting a faster acceleration than 3V cart as the difference
between two accelerations grows as the distance gets longer. It can be concluded that the 6V
force is gaining a higher rate of acceleration in a faster rate than the 3V force. Therefore, my
hypothesis was supported from the first graph.
In my next graph, Graph: 2 - Relationship of Force & Acceleration, I have aligned the
sets of data into a scatterplot. The x-axis shows the forces that came out from the lab and
y-axis shows the range of every corresponding acceleration to the force. The line of best fit
for the 6V has a faster acceleration than that of 3V in almost every force but the interval near
0.05 (N). As the 6V data shows more evidence that stronger force does result in a faster
acceleration, my hypothesis was corroborated by the lab data.
My research question was, What is the effect of the different voltage on the rate of
acceleration on the propeller driven physics cart?. My answer is, The higher the voltage is,
the faster the acceleration gets due to the proportional relationship Force and acceleration
has from Newtons Second Law of Motion, F=ma. My inquiry was answered by making 2
different graphs, each showing the relationship of acceleration with another factor (distance
and force), and in every case the conclusion derived from the graphs supported my thesis.
Eventually, my inquiry was solved.

My results were not unexpected and I believe was the most possible conclusion to
happen. Newtons Second Law of Motion can be stated as, The acceleration of an object as
produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the
same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Newton-s-Second-Law). The
equation F=ma, where as F is force, m is mass, and a is acceleration, is the translation of the
previous statement into mathematical equation. As the Force on the left side of the equation
increases, the Acceleration on the right side will increase in order to balance the equation.
This is why acceleration increases when the force increases.
My lab, as previously stated, supports my hypothesis but not with a full credit. In the
interval from the Graph:2 - Relationship of Force & Acceleration, approximately between the
0.048 (N) and 0.055 (N), the acceleration of 3V is much higher than that of 6V. This part
becomes an outlier and refutes back to my conclusion. However, the both in 3V and 6V
scatterplots, it shows a positive slope for the trend line, which means as the Force increases,
so does the acceleration. The errors could have been caused due to the fact that acceleration
increases as the object runs for a longer period until it reaches the constant velocity. 6Vs
acceleration at 1.5 m could be smaller than that of 3V when the object ran 4.5 m because 3V
had more distance to run and therefore gain more acceleration.
The strength of my lab is that there are many trials for each distance and force. More
trials render higher accuracy of the lab when making conclusions. Based on the large quantity
of qualified data, we can figure out the correlating data, standard deviation, outliers and
much more evidence to back up the thesis statement. Lastly, it is a physics lab. Physics uses a
lot of calculations and numbers, meaning the lab datas can be easily translated by using some
equations and calculations, which could be easier than other labs in Chemistry or Biology.
Also, this increases the reliability of the lab data since it is easier to derive processed data and
more accurate.

(Figure 1. Graphing Calculator Scatterplot Data Analysis)

 Additionally, the validity of the data is proved by using the
following method. If the variables are inserted in a Ti-84
graphing calculator and you make a scatter plot based on
the data recorded above, you will get an identical analysis
of data like Figure 1. r is a strength of the data, also
known as correlation coefficient. The closer its absolute
value is to one, the stronger the datas are (more credible).
In here, r = 0.981, which evidently proves itself a high
quality data. r2 is called a coefficient of variation, a value
of measure of spread that describes the amount of
variability relative to the mean. 0.963, the value of r2,
interprets that 96.3% of the data is valid and corresponds
accurately to the x-axis, which is more than what
statistician consider as useful (90% or more is
considered as a good data among the statisticians).
Therefore, the analysis of the statistics proves my data
was perfectly fine to be used in reaching my conclusion.
This is another strength of my lab. The validity can be logically, and strongly advocated.
Ironically, the weakness of the lab is that we need to make too many processed data
in order to reach to reach the conclusion we want. From every processed data, as the data
gets rounded up, the precision gets lower. From the time the cart spent to the acceleration
and force, 4 to 5 calculations were necessary. This is unhealthy in order to get a meticulous
lab data.
The experiment could have been more credible if we had changed the place of the
experiment. Due to lack of space in the classroom, our group had decided to take the
experiment at the outdoors. We found a fairly flat space and decided to perform the lab.
Later, we had realized one crucial problem; the wind was blowing. It was a natural wind so it
was not blowing constantly, therefore could result in inaccurate lab data. We found a remedy
which was to build a barrier with computer and a flat panel but it may not have been enough.
This problem can be solved by performing the lab indoor, where there is no other factor that
distracts the performers from gathering a lab data. Also, the space we used for the cart was
not an ideal condition; it was randomly bumpy (did not have a pattern), meaning carts could
not have ran at the equal environment in every trial. The solution to this is indoor as well, but
a place where the floor is neat and doesnt have many bump. Additionally, an angled flat
would be much better to see the larger range and variability of acceleration.
The experimental method was highly reliable. Even though there were some control
variables that affected the lab data, but most of the times the conditions for all the trials and
the treatments were identical, which would increase the validity of the results. The
experiment was held in a logical manner and method, appropriate enough to gather and
prove the hypothesis and research question of the data lab.

The experiment might look like a simple one, but the logic behind it can be largely
applied in our world, especially in transportation. For examples, airplanes or rockets will find
Newtons Second Law of Motion very handy because they will have to calculate the burning
fuels to let each transportation fly into the air without crashing down (unless each ran out of
fuel). Cars, motorcycles, even bicycles can be applied with this law. Scientists will calculate
the force needed to make the object (mass) move. We see this law in sports as well. To catch
the ball with more efficient amount of force, professional sportsmen swing their hands back a
bit in order to increase the time it takes to arrive within their hand. Increasing the t and
reducing p / t leads to reduction of force the sportsmen should apply to catch the ball.
Another experiment I would choose to perform in my next investigation would be the
similar one to what I have done, but with additional conditions. There must be a slope (can
be either positive or negative, but must be the same). And also an object that is tied to the
cart. This would render acceleration to increase in a more incredible rate as time passes, since
it needs a lot of acceleration to keep the force to move the object itself.
I gained another inquiry while performing this experiment and that was How would
gravity influence the force of a moving object? I believe softball experiment can answer to
my new question. In this experiment, a softball is dropped on a slide with angles rolling down
until it reaches the floor. People stop their watch as the softball passes a certain distance.
This experiment can show how the acceleration can be increased due to the influence of
gravity.

Sources Cited:

 Writer,LeafGroup."SecondLawofMotionExperiments."Sciencing.LeafGroup,
n.d.Web.16Apr.2017.
"ApplicationoftheLawsofMotioninOurDailyLife."AllArticlesRSS.N.p.,n.d.
Web.16Apr.2017.
"Newton'sSecondLawofMotioninEverydayLife."TopprBytes.N.p.,26Nov.
2016.Web.16Apr.2017.