Hey
Sooo I have like less than 3 hours left for finishing this shitty report and I have no idea what to do.
Basically we took some measurements in the lab regarding a robotic arm rotating with a mass attached to it (we took measurements about force and period), and the professor asked us to verify the centripetal force law F=mrω2 and study the correlation between F(m) and F(r).
I have NO idea about what they actually want to see since they said nothing about it, but I guess I have to do some fit (???) with Wolfram Mathematica and calculate the slope of the line generated by putting m (or r) on the x axis and F on the y axis... and that would give me some value related to it, I guess? I don't know. I need help, please save me
i'll put some data in the pic
>>280753
What is the T_m stand for?
>>280757
It's the mean period
>>280753
For r1,r2,r3,r4 which mass is being used to calculate the force?
>>280765
m2, and for calculating the force while changing m we used r2
>>280765
r3 actually, sorry. anyway i generated a data fit curve for m1m2m3 and i found the correlation coefficient (maybe) which should be 0.99775, but i'm not sure actually
>>280753
Use the equation to find centripetal Force given all the values. F is ma and rw2 has the same units as acceleration so I guess F_r=F*r.
Too lazy to check but at least the units work out.
>>280782
I know how to do that, but I was asked to find the correlation coefficient. I've already found the centripetal force, as you can see (Fm is the mean of the centripetal force of 30 measurements). I should also calculate the X2 and verify a few other things
>>280782
Actually it would have to be a ratio of the radii compared to r3. Are you sure it isn't r2 though since it has the same value for m2?
>>280753
I would just make two plots. One with F vs m and F vs r. As long as they are straight/linear, it matches the equation.
>>280801
Your value for the correlation coefficient sounds right then. For r or m, if either increases, the other has to increase assuming every other variable stays fixed.
>>280802
I still don't understand why my X2 value for F(m) is "12791.3". It's too damn big
>>280805
idk about these statistics parts but check to make sure you're using the right values. Your fit is good which means the chi should be low.
>>280806
values are good :<
>>280806
>>280811
It's the index
>>280813
Of what?
>>280814
Of the 3 x and 3 y values
>>280815
What formula are you using for X2?
>>280816
The one you see in the code, lol.
>>280818
Sorry but I haven't learned this part of statistics so can't help you from here on out.
>>280820
I see, thank you anyway