ACCELEROMETERS

The aim of this EEI was to investigate what accelerometers are, what type of acceleration they measure and how they measure it. This was achieved using a variety of testing scenarios, including steady state and free-fall scenarios, circular motion and motion down an inclined plane. Measurements were made with a purpose-built accelerometer and a professional accelerometer, and the results were compared with theoretical calculations to evaluate the accuracy of the measurements. The outcome of the investigation was that both accelerometers were able to approximate the actual accelerations in most cases, but they had limitations and there was significant uncertainty in the measurements. The results were most useful in demonstrating the fact that accelerometers measure proper acceleration.

Contents:
2 3 7 11 19 20 Introduction Procedure Results Discussion Conclusion References

Logbook attached

INTRODUCTION
As its name suggests an accelerometer is a sensor used to detect acceleration. Accelerometers are also known as g meters because they usually measure acceleration in units of g, which is the acceleration due to gravity. Accelerometers are very useful in many applications including collision detection for airbags in cars, vibration monitoring in machinery, guidance and control systems in aircraft and spacecraft, tilt sensing and drop detection [6]. Accelerometers can take on many forms and have the ability to detect different ranges of accelerations along one, two or three axes with varying degrees of accuracy. Commonly used professional sensors include the capacitive type which measures a change in electrical capacitance between a fixed and moving electrode, and the piezoelectric type which has a crystal which emits a charge under a compressive force.

Capacitive sensor [3]

Piezoelectric sensor [10]

acceleration is proportional to force and inversely proportional to mass, i.e. = . So when an unbalanced force is applied to an object acceleration occurs. The forces associated with particular types of acceleration can generate visible changes if part of the system is able to move relative to the externally applied motion. For example, if a container of water is accelerated in a straight line inertia will cause the water to slope up towards the back of the container. If rotated about a central vertical axis the water will curve outwards in a parabolic shape as the movement of the water is in the opposite direction to the centripetal force. However, the movement of the liquid in response to the force applied is complex to model, so this is not the most practical way of measuring acceleration.

The simplest accelerometers rely on the relationship between force and acceleration described by Newtons second law of motion, = , which states that force is proportional to acceleration and mass. Also,

[12]

[2]

[2]

[2]

[12]

The challenge of constructing an accelerometer is to choose a design that can measure quantities of acceleration and display a reading. The professional accelerometers described previously measure acceleration according to a change in voltage or electric current. Basic accelerometers can simply measure the displacement of a mass that is suspended along an axis. Since the displacement of the mass is related to the amount of force applied, and acceleration is proportional to force, the device can measure acceleration. Some single axis or linear accelerometer designs have the mass suspended by springs that are attached to the devices case. If each springs extension can be accurately modelled by Hookes Law, 2

 = , then the displacement from the equilibrium position is known to be directly proportional and in the opposite direction to the springs restoring force. This means that a scale can be developed whereby x displacement corresponds to a acceleration, as shown below.

[4] As will be discussed in this report, an accelerometer functions by detecting acceleration relative to freefall, also known as proper acceleration. The aim of this investigation is to construct a basic accelerometer, subject it to different types of motion and evaluate how the results compare to theoretical calculations and to the readings of a professional accelerometer.

PROCEDURE
Constructing a tube accelerometer single axis, one-directional elastic band accelerometer A cardboard tube 40 mm in diameter was cut with a Stanley knife to approximately 260 mm in length. A slit sufficiently wide enough, about 10 mm, to view the inside was cut down the length of the tube, leaving a gap at each end to maintain the tubes shape. Small holes were drilled across the diameter a small distance from each end of the tube. A paper clip was straightened and inserted into each set of holes, then bent down onto the sides of the tube. To construct the holder for the washers, which are the masses being used, a paper clip was straightened out and one end was bent into a spiral shape, lying in a plane perpendicular to the vertical axis. A small loop was made on the other end where the rubber band attaches to. A size 33 rubber band was cut to give a straight length of about 180 mm. The rubber band was then cut in half lengthways to achieve a width of 1.6 mm. One end was tied to the loop on the washer holder (placed inside the tube) and the other end was tied to the middle of the paper clip at one of the ends of the tube, and the knot was tied at such a distance so that the bottom of the washer holder was hanging halfway down the tube. In case the rubber band had to be removed later the position of the knot was marked with a pen. Investigation of Hookes Law Before assembling the accelerometer, the extension of the rubber band in response to a varying number of masses was measured. The washer holder was attached to the rubber band and the initial length was measured. Then washers were added in sets of two up to a total of 16 and the length of the stretched rubber band was measured in each case. The same process was repeated for a rubber band of standard width (3.2 mm). The mass of one washer was determined using a mass balance. The extension of a spring in response to a varying force was also measured. The force applied was measured as mass in 0.5 kg intervals up to 2.5 kg using a small fishing mass gauge.

Calibration Experiments to determine whether the rubber band obeyed Hookes Law concluded that it does not [see Results and Discussion]. As discussed, one of the implications of the extension not being directly proportional to the force is that the increments on the accelerometers scale will not be equally spaced. Therefore the scale was created manually. Washers were added to the paperclip holder in groups of four. With a starting mass of four washers the tube was held vertically and still, then a mark was made on the side of the tube where the bottom of the holder extended to. This was labelled 1 g (Fig. 2). Four more washers were added and the next mark was labelled 2 g (Fig. 3). This process was repeated up to 20 washers and 5 g. Additional 0.5 g measurements were also plotted on the scale.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2a

Fig. 3a

Fig. 4a

Fig. 2b

Fig. 3b

Fig. 4b

Fig. 5

Finally, the accelerometer could be set up for its testing state. The 1 g arrangement of four washers was added to the holder and taped securely in place (Fig. 5). One later modification was that a length of wire was installed running down the centre of the tube and through the washers. The extra wire was designed to prevent the washers from touching the walls of the tube during non-vertical testing. TESTING SCENARIOS Using a capacitive accelerometer Because of its linear design and measurement scaling of only 0.5 g, the tube accelerometer could not be used in all the desired testing scenarios, in particular the inclined plane tests. Therefore, a professional three axis capacitive-type accelerometer, designated LIS302DL and built into the Apple iPod Touch was also used to record accelerations. One advantage of using this accelerometer is that it measures acceleration to 0.01 g at a frequency of up to 0.1 s, so it could be used to judge the accuracy of the homemade accelerometer. The software installed on the iPod displayed acceleration in three modes: a recording mode that creates a data table, a graphing mode and a g meter mode. 1) Steady state After the tube accelerometer was set up for its testing state with four washers it was held vertically and stationary, then the g reading was recorded. Steady state measurements were also made with the iPod 4

accelerometer. Each axis was aligned vertically to the surface of the Earth in both the positive and negative directions, and the g reading in each case was graphed. 2) Free-fall In this simple test the tube accelerometer was held horizontally and the position of the bottom of the washers was marked. In the next test it was dropped vertically and recorded with a video camera. The same test was performed with the iPod accelerometer. The iPod was dropped so that one of its three axes was vertical. The drop was repeated three times and in each mode: the graph mode and the data recording mode (at a frequency of 0.1 s). 3) Circular In this experiment the tube accelerometer was sticky taped to a ceiling fan at three different distances from the fans central axis and the fan was run at two different speeds. The distances were 24 cm, 28.5 cm and 34 cm (from the centre of the fan to the 1 g position). The two speeds were number 3 (slowest) and number 2. Number 1 could not be tested because the fan wobbled excessively due to imbalance. The number of rotations in 30 seconds was counted for speed 3. Speed 2 was too fast to count with the naked eye so one of the experiments was recorded with a video camera and it was analysed in slow motion. To record the g reading flash photos were taken. Similar experiments were conducted with the iPod accelerometer. The distances tested were 11 cm, 20 cm and 24 cm (from the centre of the fan to the location of the accelerometer 1 cm from the top of the device). Larger distances were not tested because the iPod was approximately three times heavier than the tube accelerometer and caused too much oscillation of the fan. It was safe to use fan speed 2 at the small distances. Results for fan speed 3 were not collected because the accelerations were quite low. The g readings were taken in the data recording mode, at a frequency of 0.5 s. 4) Inclined plane Tilt sensing The iPod was taped to a flat piece of MDF and then inclined at various angles. The angles were measured with a protractor in intervals of 15. The g readings were taken in the data recording mode.

Example: tilted at 45

Acceleration down an incline Firstly, experiments were performed to determine the coefficients of static and kinetic friction. To determine the coefficient of static friction the incline was raised until the iPod just started to slide down it. The angle at which the motion started was recorded. This was repeated a number of times until a consistent result was achieved. To determine the coefficient of kinetic friction the incline was set at various angles and the iPod was gently pushed down the slope. There was a certain angle at which the iPod slid down the incline with a constant velocity, and this was recorded. Secondly, the incline was set at angles from 30 to 75 in 15 intervals. The iPod was positioned at the top of the incline and data recording was commenced with a frequency of one measurement every 0.1 seconds. Three trials were performed for each angle and only the Y axis acceleration data was recorded.

RESULTS
Investigation of Hookes Law Mass of 16 washers = 114 g 3.2 mm rubber band (standard width) No. of washers Mass (g) Force (N) Length (mm) 0 00 00 1.60102 0.5 2 14.3 0.01 0.140 1.2310-4 1.62102 0.5 4 28.5 0.03 0.279 2.4510-4 1.65102 0.5 6 42.3 0.04 0.419 3.6810-4 1.70102 0.5 8 57.0 0.05 0.559 4.9010-4 1.73102 0.5 10 71.3 0.06 0.698 6.1310-4 1.80102 0.5 12 85.5 0.08 0.838 7.3510-4 1.85102 0.5 14 99.8 0.09 0.978 8.5810-4 1.90102 0.5 16 114 0.1 1.12 9.8010-4 1.95102 0.5 1.6 mm rubber band (half width) No. of washers Mass (g) Force (N) Length (mm) 0 00 00 1.60102 0.5 -4 2 14.3 0.01 0.140 1.2310 1.65102 0.5 4 28.5 0.03 0.279 2.4510-4 1.78102 0.5 6 42.3 0.04 0.419 3.6810-4 1.92102 0.5 8 57.0 0.05 0.559 4.9010-4 2.14102 0.5 10 71.3 0.06 0.698 6.1310-4 2.40102 0.5 12 85.5 0.08 0.838 7.3510-4 2.70102 0.5 14 99.8 0.09 0.978 8.5810-4 3.10102 0.5 16 114 0.1 1.12 9.8010-4 3.50102 0.5 Spring (8 mm diameter) Mass (kg) Force (N) Length (mm) 00 00 6.5010 0.5 0.50 0.1 4.9 1 1.05102 0.5 1.00 0.1 9.8 1 1.31102 0.5 1.50 0.1 14.7 1 1.62102 0.5 2.00 0.1 19.6 1 1.80102 0.5 2.50 0.1 24.5 1 2.10102 0.5

Displacement (mm) 00 2.00 1 5.00 1 10.0 1 13.0 1 20.0 1 25.0 1 30.0 1 35.0 1 Displacement (mm) 00 5.00 1 18.0 1 32.0 1 54.0 1 80.0 1 110 1 150 1 190 1 Displacement (cm) 0 4 6.6 9.7 11.5 14.5

TESTING SCENARIOS 1) Steady state Tube accelerometer

iPod accelerometer

X axis +

Y axis +

Z axis +

X axis 2) Free-fall

Y axis -

Z axis -

Tube accelerometer g readings Horizontal position

Falling vertically

iPod accelerometer g readings The iPod was face up with the z axis vertical.

3) Circular Tube accelerometer g readings Radius (cm) Fan speed 3 24 2.2 g

Fan speed 2 5.5 g

28.5

2.5 g

No measurement *

34

3.5 g

No measurement *

*No reading could be taken because the washers were off the scale. 9

iPod accelerometer g readings (Y axis) Radius (cm) Fan speed 2 11 0.72 g 20 1.18 g 24 1.52 g Fan speed 3: revolutions per 30 seconds = 42 Fan speed 2: revolutions per 30 seconds = 69 4) Inclined plane Tilt sensing Angle above horizontal () 0 15 30 45 60 75 90

Z axis g reading -1.050 -1.010 -0.920 -0.740 -0.540 -0.290 -0.020

Acceleration down an incline Information for calculating coefficients of static and kinetic friction Angle () at which iPod started moving down slope Angle () at which iPod slid down incline at a constant velocity Y axis g readings for acceleration down an incline Angle above horizontal () 30 45 60 75 Trial -0.60 -0.74 -0.92 -1.05 -0.43 -0.38 -0.27 -0.22 -0.42 -0.40 -0.24 -0.22 1 -0.42 -0.38 -0.31 -0.24 -0.40 -0.40 -0.31 -0.22 -0.60 -0.82 -0.92 -1.03 -0.42 -0.42 -0.30 -0.43 -0.42 -0.38 -0.31 -0.22 2 -0.42 -0.42 -0.33 -0.22 -0.42 -0.40 -0.29 -0.23 -0.58 -0.82 -0.94 -1.03 -0.43 -0.47 -0.29 -0.74 -0.43 -0.40 -0.27 -0.24 3 -0.42 -0.38 -0.27 -0.24 -0.42 -0.40 -0.28 -0.27

22.5 19

10

DISCUSSION
Dealing with uncertainty In the Results section uncertainties were not listed for most of the measurements because the uncertainty was unknown and incalculable. Assuming no other sources of uncertainty are involved, the uncertainty of a measurement is one half of the smallest measurement on the scale, so this is the smallest possible uncertainty that can be stated. However, in all of the experiments that were conducted there were several other significant sources of uncertainty and therefore there was too much doubt in the measurements to confidently use the smallest uncertainty. For example, the tube accelerometer was calibrated to measure accelerations with a scale of 0.5 g. It would be inappropriate to state that a given reading has an uncertainty of 0.25 g, because there was significant uncertainty in the way the tube accelerometer was actually calibrated. There was uncertainty in the extension of the rubber band itself (hysteresis is the effect of a stretched rubber band not returning to its original length), in the size of the different sets of masses used to create the g readings, in the amount of friction with the walls of the tube, in the twisting of the rubber band around the supporting wire and in the durability of the knots under different forces. It would be meaningless to fabricate precise uncertainties for measurements that were inherently unreliable approximations of the actual acceleration. The tube accelerometer has low accuracy not because it has a scale of only 0.5 g, but mainly because of the combined uncertainty of all the other variables. It was designed to be a low-tech home-made instrument to give approximate readings that demonstrate the principles of g-force, not as a precision instrument. Whilst there were several sources of uncertainty in the results, the operational sources of error were minimised as much as possible. Parallax error was avoided and all distances, angles and times were measured as carefully as possible. Also, the tests for acceleration down an incline were repeated multiple times and the mean was calculated. This was because the inclined plane used was very short and there was only a small window of data to collect, so there was likely to be some variation between each test. The other experiments were only performed once because the motion was sustained, with the exception of the free-fall tests. The iPod accelerometer is more accurate than the tube accelerometer, but its uncertainty is still unknown. The manufacturer of the LIS302DL accelerometer, ST Microelectronics, has published a report on the device that includes information on the range of possible uncertainties that it can have. Extract from report: A deviation from ideal value in this case is called Zero-g offset. Offset is to some extent a result of stress to a precise MEMS sensor and therefore the offset can slightly change after mounting the sensor onto a printed circuit board or exposing it to extensive mechanical stress. Offset changes little over temperature. The Zero-g level of an individual sensor is stable over lifetime. [11]

11

According to this probability distribution it is highly unlikely that the accelerometer used has an uncertainty of more than about 0.05 g. An example of how uncertainties might be handled in calculations is given for the results of the Investigation of Hookes Law. The only measurements taken here were the combined mass of 16 washers and the initial lengths of the rubber bands and spring. The mass balance displayed the mass to the nearest gram. Mass of 16 washers = 114 0.1 g Mass of 1 washer = 7.125 0.00625 g (= 7.125 103 6.25 106 kg) = 7.13 0.006 g (with same numbers of significant figures) Mass of washers = 7.125 0.00625 g

The weight then needed to be calculated by multiplying the mass by 1 g. This changed the units to Newtons, therefore the uncertainty must also change.
3 6.25 106 kg) = 9.8(7.125 10

The lengths of the rubber bands and spring were measured to the nearest mm with a tape measure. For example, the initial length of the standard rubber band was 1.60102 0.5. The next length was 1.62102 0.5, and the displacement or difference between the lengths was calculated. Because both measurements had uncertainty the uncertainty of the displacement was twice that of the original measurements. Displacement = (1.62 102 0.5) (1.60 102 0.5) = 2.00 1 mm

= 6.9825 102 6.125 105 N = 6.98 102 6 105 N

The reason for using exponential notation is to keep the same number of significant figures in all the measurements. For example, 160 has only two significant figures, whereas 1.60 102 has three. Investigation of Hookes Law The results prove that the thin rubber band used for the accelerometer does not obey Hookes Law. The graph does not resemble a straight line, therefore the displacement is not in direct proportion to the force applied. The measurements taken for the standard width rubber band and the spring more closely correlate with a straight line, but not exactly. Most rubber bands do not stretch uniformly, whereas helical springs follow Hookes Law up to a certain limit [9]. The variation in the measurements for the spring tested is more likely to be caused by uncertainty, especially in the force applied to the spring. The force was measured with a mass scale, which may not have been very accurate. It was necessary to use the thin rubber band as opposed to the thicker rubber band or spring because this was the only material that had enough elasticity to be substantially extended by a small weight. Using larger masses would have made the device less compact and made it difficult to perform particular experiments.

12

Workings of the iPod accelerometer Sensing element in the iPod Touch accelerometer A proprietary process is used to create a surface micro-machined accelerometer. The technology allows to carry out suspended silicon structures which are attached to the substrate in a few points called anchors and are free to move in the direction of the sensed acceleration. To be compatible with the traditional packaging techniques a cap is placed on top of the sensing element to avoid blocking the moving parts during the moulding phase of the plastic encapsulation. How it measures acceleration When an acceleration is applied to the sensor the proof mass displaces from its nominal position, causing an imbalance in the capacitive half-bridge. This imbalance is measured using charge integration in response to a voltage pulse applied to the sense capacitor. [11] How the tube accelerometer measures acceleration The tube accelerometer relies on the simple fact that the weight of the suspended washers is proportional to two things: the mass of the washers and the acceleration due to gravity. In the steady state 1 g position the mass was fixed (equal to the mass of four washers) and g was approximately 9.8 m/s2, the average acceleration at the surface of the Earth. As described in the procedure, extra washers were added to increase the mass. If the mass is increased by a factor of n, then the force of gravity will also increase by n, causing some displacement from the 1 g position. = In a different situation where the mass remains unchanged, the force of gravity might instead be increased by raising the value of g. = This is the basic principle of the tube accelerometer in its working state. Any displacement from the 1 g must be caused by a change in the force that the moving part is applying, which indicates a different acceleration. The reasons why the acceleration changes during different testing states will be discussed next. 1) Steady state and 2) Free-fall When the tube accelerometer is stationary and vertical on the surface of the Earth there are two forces acting on it: the force of gravity (its weight) and the normal reaction force provided by whatever is supporting it. Using an inertial coordinate system, one would observe that the accelerometer is not accelerating. However, it actually reads 1 g. This is because accelerometers measure proper acceleration, or the deviation from freefall acceleration [14]. An accelerometer cannot solely detect the force of gravity it can only register the opposing reaction force that acts upwards. Therefore, if the force of gravity is the only force acting on it, which means it is in free-fall, then the accelerometer will measure 0 g. Einsteins equivalence principle states that a uniform gravitational field is indistinguishable from an acceleration of the reference frame. [8] A person in free-fall, with an accelerating frame of reference, cannot determine the direction or magnitude of the gravitational field, unlike an observer who has an inertial frame of reference. This situation is known as weightlessness [5]. Note that an object experiencing free-fall acceleration does not necessarily have to be falling. It can be moving upwards, be instantaneously stationary at the maximum height of some trajectory, or in orbit (where its centripetal acceleration is equal to the value for g at this height). In addition, considering that the tube accelerometer is single axis, when held horizontally it will theoretically display 0 g. In true freefall motion there are no other forces except for the gravitational force. From an inertial frame of reference, air resistance gradually decelerates a falling object until the drag equals the objects weight, at which point it has reached its terminal velocity. From the accelerating frame of reference, this is equivalent to the object being in an accelerometers steady state, or stationary on the ground, since there is no net force. 13

From an inertial reference frame, in the steady state the entire accelerometer, including the suspended mass, experiences 1 g of acceleration downwards. The external tube and the components that support the rubber band experience no unbalanced forces (they are either stationary or moving with constant velocity). The suspended mass, pulling downwards on the rubber band, will as a result have some displacement. The displacement is from the 0 g position, which is where it would be if it were weightless and thus did not pull on the rubber band with any force. If an unbalanced force was applied to the tube in the upwards direction, exceeding the force of gravity and the steady state, then the accelerometer will measure acceleration in excess of 1 g. Alternately, the tube may be following a circular path, resulting in centripetal acceleration exceeding 9.8 m/s2, as was performed in a number of experiments. In all cases the acceleration experienced is due to the vector sum of non-gravitational forces [5], remembering that any unbalanced force (when viewing the accelerometer from its non-inertial reference frame) will result in deviation from 0 g acceleration. The important differences between proper acceleration and acceleration as described with an inertial coordinate system have been outlined. One implication of proper acceleration is that an object does not need to have any change in velocity with respect to time in order to be accelerating. In the steady state there is no rate of change of velocity, but the measured acceleration is 1 g. This information can be used to explain the results of the steady state and free-fall experiments. As expected, the steady state reading of the tube accelerometer is 1 g. Based on the readings for the iPod accelerometer, the orientation of its axes was worked out.

[11] As predicted, when the tube accelerometer was in free-fall (held horizontally and falling vertically) the suspended mass moved above the 1 g mark on the scale. This is evidence that it was weightless along the measuring axis in the accelerating reference frame. After the iPod was dropped the recording data showed a vertical acceleration of -0.05 g, very close to the theoretical 0 g amount. The deviation from 0 may be caused by the 0 g offset of the accelerometer and/or some tilt from vertical during falling. The graph for the iPods Z axis acceleration when falling clearly shows it change to 0 g, then to -2 g when it hits the ground, then back to 0 g when it has bounced back into the air before stabilising at -1 g. Note that steady state value for this test is -1 g instead of 1 g because the iPod was inverted along the Z axis.

14

3) Circular For each fan speed and distance from the centre of the circle the theoretical centripetal acceleration will be calculated. It will be found using the formula: 4 2 = 2 Fan speed 3: revolutions per 30 seconds = 42 42 Frequency = = 1.4 rev/s 30 30 = 0.714s Period, = 42

Fan speed 2: revolutions per 30 seconds = 69 69 = 2.3 rev/s Frequency = 30 30 = 0.435 s Period, = 69 Fan speed 3: Fan speed 2: 24 cm 4 2 (0.24) = (0.714)2 = 18.586 m/s2 = 1.896 28.5 cm 4 2 (0.285) = (0.714)2 = 22.070 m/s2 = 2.252 34 cm 4 2 (0.34) = (0.714)2 = 26.329 m/s2 = 2.687 Fan speed 3 2 24 cm 4 2 (0.24) = (0.435)2 = 50.072 m/s2 = 5.109 28.5 cm 4 2 (0.285) = (0.435)2 = 59.460 m/s2 = 6.067 34 cm 4 2 (0.34) = (0.435)2 = 70.935 m/s2 = 7.238 Radius (cm) 24 28.5 34 24 28.5 34

Tube accelerometer g reading 2.2 2.5 3.5 5.5 No measurement No measurement

Actual acceleration (g) 1.896 2.252 2.687 5.109 6.067 7.238

No measurements could be recorded for the 28.5 and 34 cm distances on fan speed 2 because the washers were off the scale, which only read up to 5 g. The actual accelerations confirm that they should have been off the scale. The 24 cm distance on fan speed 2 was also off the scale, but only slightly so a measurement could still be made.

15

The accelerometer g readings do not exactly match the actual accelerations. The readings are within about 0.5 g of the actual values, except for the 34 cm distance on fan speed 3 which is about 0.8 g off. The accuracy of the readings is affected by a number of variables, which have been discussed in the Dealing with uncertainty section. One of the main problems with positioning the tube accelerometer in a horizontal plane is that the mass is not really designed to be suspended in this direction, because there is friction between the washers, the central wire and the wall of the tube. Despite this the trend in the data suggests that the accelerometer provides a good approximation of the actual acceleration, within the limits of its design. iPod accelerometer g readings (Y axis) Radius (cm) Fan speed 2 11 -0.72 g 20 -1.18 g 24 -1.52 g 11 cm 4 2 (0.11) = (0.435)2 = 22.950 m/s2 = 2.342 20 cm 4 2 (0.2) = (0.435)2 = 41.726 m/s2 = 4.258

Actual acceleration (g) 2.342 4.258 5.109 24 cm 4 2 (0.24) = (0.435)2 = 50.072 m/s2 = 5.109

There are significant differences between the accelerations measured with the iPod and the actual accelerations. It is not known for sure what the cause of this is. Whilst the iPod accelerometer provided fairly accurate measurements of small accelerations, it is possible that it is not designed to measure large accelerations. In a separate test the accelerometer was subjected to very high accelerations in all directions to investigate what the maximum g readings were.

These readings on the g meters indicate that the accelerometer, or at least the software, cannot display accelerations greater than about 2 g. All of the actual accelerations experienced during the fan tests are equal to or exceed this maximum value. It is not known then why the measured readings were not all equal to the maximum value. 4) Inclined plane Tilt sensing On a certain axis the g reading displayed by the iPod will vary as the angle is changed. This is because when it is tilted the force of gravity in that direction is only part of the full gravitational force. The complete force of gravity acting downwards can be expressed as the vector sum of two forces measured by any two axes that are not perpendicular to the true vertical axis. It follows that the acceleration of gravity, 1 g, can also be expressed as the vector sum of two accelerations, in this case measured on the Z and Y axes. In the experiment the g readings for the Z axis were recorded. When the Z axis is parallel to the vertical axis the iPods tilt angle above the horizontal is 0, and 1 g will be measured. When the Z axis is perpendicular to the vertical axis the tilt angle is 90 and 0 g will be measured. 16

gZ
iPod

gY

Z Z = cos Eg. when = 45, Z = 1 cos45 = 0.707 cos = Angle above horizontal () 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 -1.050 -1.010 -0.920 -0.740 -0.540 -0.290 -0.020

Z axis g reading

Actual Z axis acceleration (g) 1.000 0.966 0.866 0.707 0.500 0.259 0.000

Note that the Z axis g readings are negative because the iPod was held face up. For comparison with the actual accelerations the readings will be taken as positive. There is some variation in the measured accelerations compared to the actual accelerations, which is more likely to be caused by problems with the 0 g offset than an operational error in measuring the angle. Notably, the deviation from the actual acceleration in the horizontal position is 0.05 g, which is the same as the deviation in the free-fall test. The rest of the results do not vary by more than about 0.05 g. Overall, the measured readings give a somewhat accurate demonstration of the fact that the Z axis acceleration is a cosine trigonometric function of the tilt angle. Acceleration down an inclined plane It is believed that Galileo proved that objects of different mass accelerate towards the Earth equally by performing experiments involving rolling balls down inclined planes. He was able to more accurately measure the time taken for the balls to roll down the slope because the acceleration down the plane due to gravity was much less than the vertical acceleration. The purpose of performing an experiment looking at acceleration down an inclined plane is to consider amounts of acceleration falling between the free-fall situation and steady state. In the steady state the force of gravity is completely opposed by a reaction force. If the reaction force only partially opposes the gravitational force on an accelerometer, the measured acceleration will be greater than 0 g but less than 1 g. Knowing the forces acting on the iPod when it is sliding down each plane, the acceleration for each plane can be worked out. 17

Ffriction FgY Fg

Fnormal

FgZ

22.5 was the angle at which the iPod started moving down the slope. Knowing this, the coefficient of static friction can be calculated. static = tan22.5 = 0.414 19 was the angle at which the iPod moved down the slope at a constant speed, after it was given a gentle push. At this angle the weight component down the incline was equally opposed by the force of sliding friction, instead of the force of static friction. Note that in general the coefficient of kinetic friction is less than that of static friction. kinetic = tan19 = 0.344

At the threshold point where the object is just starting to slide down the plane the component of its weight down the incline is equal to the force of friction. The force of friction will never exceed the objects weight component down the plane because friction only opposes motion. cos = sin sin = cos = tan

unbalanced = = down incline friction = sin normal = sin cos

[7] Now that an expression for the unbalanced force is known, the acceleration of the object down the incline can be calculated. 18

At an angle of 30 the acceleration down the plane is: = (sin30 0.344cos30) = 0.202 At an angle of 45: = (sin45 0.344cos45) = 0.464 Angle above horizontal () 30 45 60 75

sin cos = (sin cos)

At an angle of 60: = (sin60 0.344cos60) = 0.694

At an angle of 75: = (sin75 0.344cos75) = 0.877 Theoretical acceleration down incline (g) 0.202 0.464 0.694 0.877 Theoretical proper acceleration down incline (g) sin30 - 0.202 = 0.298 sin45 - 0.464 = 0.243 sin60 - 0.694 = 0.172 sin75 - 0.877 = 0.089

Mean Y axis g reading down incline -0.421 -0.403 -0.289 -0.232

The accelerometers g reading is not comparable with the theoretical acceleration because the former is proper acceleration and the latter is acceleration from an inertial reference frame. Therefore, to convert it to proper acceleration, the theoretical acceleration was subtracted from the Y axis g reading that the accelerometer would have when it is tilted and not accelerating. Taking the accelerometer readings as positive, they can now be compared with a theoretical case. There are differences between the values, though there is a trend that acceleration decreases with a greater tilt angle. There are a number of possible reasons for the differences between measured and theoretical values. The theoretical values rely on the fact that the calculated coefficient of kinetic friction is accurate. Also, the iPod is known to have an error of up to 0.05 g in its measurements.

CONCLUSION
This thorough investigation into accelerometers has explained most of the key research problems that were initially posed. It was proven that it is possible to construct a basic accelerometer that can approximately measure acceleration according to the displacement of a suspended mass. Using a variety of testing scenarios, including steady state and free-fall scenarios, circular motion and motion down an inclined plane, it was demonstrated quite conclusively that accelerometers measure proper acceleration because they only capable of detecting non-gravitational forces. In each experiment the distinction was made between acceleration as described with an inertial and non-inertial reference frame. In most of the experiments that were conducted, logical trends could be identified in the data. In the first three types of experiments accelerations were measured with both the tube accelerometer and a capacitive accelerometer in an iPod. Whilst the iPod accelerometer has a smaller scale of g readings, it was not entirely accurate due to a 0 g offset error. There were also significant uncertainties in the measurements for all experiments, so the results should be viewed as only approximations. The accuracy of the measurements was evaluated by comparing them to theoretical calculations. In one experiment investigating circular motion, the g readings of the iPod accelerometer were incomparable with the actual accelerations, exposing the limitation that the device can only measure small accelerations. The tube accelerometer was capable of measuring larger accelerations more accurately, though the limits of its design were also exceeded during this type of experiment. The main advantage of the iPod accelerometer was its three axis design, which made it possible 19

to measure the proper acceleration along a tilted axis and to investigate the acceleration down an inclined plane.

REFERENCES
[1] A Beginners Guide to Accelerometers. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.dimensionengineering.com/accelerometers.htm [2] Accelerometer on Inclined Plane. (2007). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosc4/c4-12.htm [3] Accelerometers. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.rotoview.com/accelerometer.htm [4] Accelerometers. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.vectornav.com/accelerometer [5] Apparent Motion. (2008). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/apparent_motion.php [6] Clavius. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from www.xmission.com/~jwindley/bibdict.html [7] Coefficients of Static and Kinetic Friction. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/frict2.html [8] Gravity Perception. (2009). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.av8n.com/physics/gravity-perception.htm [9] Hysteresis and Rubber Bands. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.madphysics.com/exp/hysteresis_and_rubber_bands.htm [10] Introduction to Mechatronics and Measurement Systems. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://mechatronics.colostate.edu/figures/index.html [11] LIS302DL Accelerometer. (2008). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/12726.pdf [12] Senior Physics EEI Ideas. (2009). Retrieved 2010, from http://seniorphysics.com/physics/eei.html [13] Standard Rubber Band Sizes. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.lee-rubber.com/sizes.htm [14] Thinking About Accelerometers and Gravity. (2006). Retrieved 2010, from http://www.lunar.org/docs/LUNARclips/v5/v5n1/Accelerometers.html [15] Types of Accelerometers. (2010). Retrieved 2010, from http://bits.me.berkeley.edu/beam/acc_2b.html

20