The resultant of two or more forces (vectors) is found by balancing the forces with another force (weights

on a hanger) so that the ring is centered at the central pin. The balancing force is not the resultant but rather the
equilibrant, or the force that balances the other forces and holds the ring in equilibrium, Wilson and Hernndez-
Hall stated (2015, p. 81). The equilibrant has the same magnitude with the resultant but opposite in direction which
elucidates how the ring is centered.

Shown in Table 1.1 below are the computed vector sum and position (measured in degrees) through
analytical and graphical methods of the obtained experimental data. Also, percentage errors were included based on
magnitude and position results of the two above said methods.
pcalc
Table 1.1 Computed resultant vectors of analytical and graphical calculations of the experimental data with the
corresponding percentage error.

CASE THEORETICAL ANALYTICAL % ERROR Analytical GRAPHICAL % ERROR Graphical

M (g) P () M (g) P () M (g) P () M (g) P () M (g) P ()
1 200.81 210 206.35 30 2.76 % 0 205 30 2.49 % 0
2 200.30 210 209.09 30.34 4.39 % 1.13 % 205 30 2.50 % 0
3 200.30 210 194.93 30.33 2.68 % 1.10 % 200 30 0.15 % 0
4 200.30 210 206.48 29.13 3.09 % 2.90 % 190 29 5.14 % 3.33 %
5 200.30 210 192.02 29.96 4.13 % 0.13 % 215 29 7.34 % 3.33 %

For the analytical method, solving the resultant vector was achieved by using the component method where
each vector components are resolved into x and y components. In Case 1, the magnitude (an experimental value) of
the hanging mass 2 was already the resultant as the hanging mass 1 [at 210 weighing 200.81 g] was counteracted
and the ring was centered. The hanging mass 1 for Case 2 to Case 5 was set to be 200.30 g fixed in position at 210.
In Case 2, two hanging masses were added and K[kept]TRATC. For Case 3, it would be unable to KTRATC just by
only adjusting the magnitude when the position of hanging mass 3 [303.26 g] has been changed by at least 10 from
Case 2. The hanging mass being adjusted [can be considered] already acting as and equilibrant of the two other
vectors thus the set up was only KTRATC when the position and magnitude of hanging mass 3 was adjusted again
which was found out having approximate values (magnitude and position) as in Case 2. In Case 4, since the two
hanging mass or vectors are perpendicular to each other, the equilibrant is theoretically opposite in direction of the
middle angle of the two vectors. Consider the obtained experimental positions of the vectors 65 and 335, the angle
of the resultant should be 20 relative to the x-axis. But, the opposite position of 20 is 200 in which it deviates to
the set equilibrant in 210 procuring the error. Lastly for Case 5, three vectors were KTRATC which suggested that
the number of vectors do not limit the equilibrant as long as the resultant would be always constant. The possible
errors most probably originated from (1) the degree of perpendicularity of the string against the ring and (2) the
subtle movement [rotation] of the hanging masses in some instance.

For the graphical method, the resultant was measured by the displacement starting from the tail of the first
vector to the head of the last vector component usually using ruler and a protractor for the angle or position. The
errors incurred propagated from experimental values up to translation of values graphically. The use of protractor
and ruler limit the accurate quantification of the resultants magnitude that made the process prone to random error.
In addition to that, the scale used was 10mm: 50g which regulated the magnitude readings only factored by five.
Parallax error can also be taken into account in the process of graphically translating data and the measurement of
scaled illustrations.

In comparison, analytical method was verified to be *** accuracy and *** precision in solving for the
resultant because the measured quantities that are gathered are already subjected to computations. The standard
deviation was *** and *** than the latter. A number of factors in propagating errors are comparably lesser unlike
the graphical method. In graphical method, it was found out from the results that the method is *** accurate and ***
precise. The limitations of ruler and protractors increments can be factored in as well as human errors in graphing.
In making a scale, it is preferred to express and measure the exact and accurate quantities given.
 Table 1.2 Results computing the unknown mass of the block of wood and its corresponding percentage error.
TRIAL MASSCALC (g) MASSACTUAL (g) % ERROR
1 472.23 475.68 0.73 %
2 481.73 475.68 1.27%

From the concept of vectors, the magnitude of resultant can be computed given the vector components. In
the force table, a block of wood with an unknown mass was set to be the equilibrant of the two vector components
having the same mass approximately. The same increase in mass was applied to both hanging masses for the second
trial. The resultant of two vectors with the same magnitude is lying at 120 (Kumar and Juneha, 2006, p. 173). The
angles created by the two approximately equal hanging masses were 88 for trial 1 and 113 for trial 2 thus proved
that the calculated masses have errors already. Also, the string tied on the ring werent truly perpendicular to the ring
which altered the position readings and accounted to additional errors.

Kumar, N. and Juneja, J.K. (2006). Comprehensive Objective Physics for Engineering and Medical Entrance
Examinations. np: Laxmi Publications PVT. LTD.
Wilson, J. D., & Hernndez-Hall, C. A. (2015). Physics Laboratory Experiments (8th ed.). 200 First Stamford Place,
4th Floor Stamford, United States of America: Cengage Learning.