Circular Motion Lab: Comparing Changes
in Velocity Based on Changes in Radius &
Mass
Drew, Jerry, Kate, Ganesh, Ben
Experiment Diagram
Original Image from “10. Centripetal Force.” 10. Centripetal Force | UCLA Physics & Astronomy,
[Link]/content/10-centripetal-force. Accessed 8 Jan. 2026. Edited by
Ganesh Ramamurthi
Experiment Overview:
For this experiment, a rubber stopper is tied to one end of a string that is strung through a metal
straw, with a mass hanging from the other end of the string. The straw is held vertically while the
rubber stopper is made to follow a horizontal circular path at specific radii. The hanging mass
provides the centripetal force experienced by the rubber stopper when it is spun in a horizontal
circle. A total of two experiments were conducted using this setup, differing in their independent
variable. For experiment 1, the mass was changed while the radius stayed constant. For
experiment 2, the mass stayed constant while the radius changed. Data was gathered in terms
of how many seconds it took for the rubber stopper to complete 10 revolutions. The data was
then linearized and graphed in order to determine the relationship between the hanging mass
and the velocity, as well as the relationship between the radius of the circling mass and velocity.
Raw Data
(Not organized; organized tables are under each experiment):
Key:
: Measurements highlighted in yellow means the same radius was used across those trials,
but mass changed. (Experiment #1)
: Measurements highlighted in red means the same mass was used across those trials, but
radius changed. (Experiment #2)
Table 1: Seconds per revolution based on radius and mass
Swinging Mass is 0.01kg
Radius: Radius: Radius: Radius: Radius: Radius: Radius: Radius:
32.1 ± 40.0 ± 36.1 ± 36.1 ± 36.1 ± 23.2 ± 27.5 ± 36.1 ±
0.05 cm 0.05 cm 0.05 cm 0.05 cm 0.05 cm 0.05 cm .05 cm 0.05 cm
Mass: Mass: Mass: Mass: Mass: Mass: Mass: Mass:
100 ±1g 100 ± 1g 50 ± 1g 100 ± 1g 120 ± 1g 100 ± 1g 100 ± 1g 200 ± 1g
Trial 1
(# of 40 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
revolutions)
Trial 1
12.24 3.91 4.94 3.67 2.74 3.05 2.54 2.83
(± 0.01s)
Trial 2
(# of 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
revolutions)
Trial 2
3.21 3.45 4.94 3.63 2.82 2.77 2.71 2.95
(± 0.01s)
Trial 3
(# of 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
revolutions)
Trial 3
3.60 2.7 4.33 3.46 2.97 3.20 2.74 3.04
(± 0.01s)
Trial 4
10
(# of 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
revolutions)
Trial 4
3.23 2.98 4.96 3.57 3.22 2.69 2.77 2.89
(± 0.01s)
Qualitative measurements:
● With a larger mass, we had to swing the small mass much faster to keep it steady
● The velocity had to be very precise to keep the mass hanging in a balance, as opposed to going to far
up or too far down
● When trying to keep a larger radius, we had to spin the bob faster
Experiment #1: Changing the Mass
Processed Data and Calculations (Ex. 1)
Table 2: Calculated Period vs Change in Radii
Radius (m) Mass (±0.001kg) Revolutions Period (±0.01s)
10 4.94
10 4.94
0.050
10 4.33
10 3.96
10 3.67
10 3.63
0.100
0.361 ± 0.005m 10 3.46
10 3.57
10 2.74
10 2.82
0.120
10 2.97
10 3.22
10 2.83
10 2.95
0.200
10 3.04
10 2.89
Table 3: Processed Data of Period vs. Change in Mass
Radius for all trials: 0.361 ± 0.005m
Mass Trial 1 Period Trial 2 Period Trial 3 Period Trial 4 Period Average
(±0.001 kg) (s) (s) (s) Period &
Error
0.050 0.494 0.494 0.433 0.496 0.479 ± 0.03s
0.100 0.367 0.363 0.346 0.357 0.358 ± 0.01s
0.120 0.274 0.282 0.297 0.322 0.294 ± 0.02s
0.200 0.283 0.295 0.304 0.289 0.293 ± 0.01s
Example calculation for period:
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 4.94 𝑠
𝑇= 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 10 𝑟𝑒𝑣
= 0. 494 𝑠
Example calculation for uncertainty of average period:
(Data taken from trial 1 of the hanging mass of 0.050 kg)
𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛
2
= 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
0.496 𝑠 − 0.433 𝑠
2
= ± 0. 03𝑠
Table 4: Mass of Hanging Mass vs. Velocity of Swinging Mass
Mass (±0.001kg) Velocity (m/s) (based on Average Period from
the previous table)
0.050 4.74 ± 0.4 m/s
0.100 6.34 ± 0.3 m/s
0.120 7.72 ± 0.6 m/s
0.200 7.74 ± 0.4 m/s
Example calculation for velocity:
2π𝑟 2π × 0.361 𝑚
𝑣= 𝑇
= 0.479 𝑠
= 4. 74 𝑚/𝑠
Example calculation for uncertainty of velocity:
Data taken from table 3, with mass 0.050 kg.
Absolute uncertainty of radius: ±0.005m
Absolute uncertainty of seconds: ±0.001s
0.005𝑚
Relative uncertainty of radius: 0.361𝑚
= 0. 01385
0.03𝑠
Relative uncertainty of average period: 0.479𝑠
= 0. 06263
Since we are dividing, we add up the relative uncertainties of the radius and average period:
0. 01385 + 0. 06263 = 0. 07648
Convert back to absolute uncertainty:
4. 74 𝑚/𝑠 × 0. 07648 = 0. 36 ≈ 0. 4 𝑚/𝑠
Example of deriving velocity from mass and radius data & Linearizing Data:
Since we know that:
2
𝑚𝑣
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
𝐹𝑔 = 𝐹𝑐 (system in equilibrium)
𝐹𝑔 = 𝑚𝑔
We can derive that:
2
𝑚2𝑣
𝑚1𝑔 = 𝑟
, where m1 is the hanging mass and m2 is the spinning mass.
Our independent variable in this first experiment is mass of the hanging weight, while our
dependent variable is the period, which is inversely related to the velocity, so we can solve this
in the equation:
2
𝑚2𝑣
𝑚1𝑔 = 𝑟
𝑔𝑟
𝑚1 × 𝑚2
=𝑣
𝑔𝑟
Based on the equation calculated above ( 𝑚1 × 𝑚2
= 𝑣), we know that in order to plot 𝑣
against 𝑚1 linearly, we must plot 𝑣 against 𝑚1.
Graph 1: Linear velocity vs. 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡
Purple is the linear regression; red is the max slope line; blue is the min slope line
2
The equation for this line is 𝑦 = 13. 85839𝑥 + 2. 0151, 𝑅 = 0. 8051, 𝑟 = 0. 8973
−1 −1/2
𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒: 9. 838699101 ≈ 9. 84 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔
−1 −1/2
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒: 16. 994116629 ≈ 17. 0 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔
Calculating uncertainty of slope:
−1 −1/2 −1 −1/2
𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛 17.0 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 − 9.84 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 −1 −1/2
𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 2
= 2
= 3. 58 ≈ ± 4 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔
−1 −1/2
Slope = 13. 9 ± 4 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔
−1 −1/2
𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒, 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 = 13. 9 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 ± 28. 8%
What it means:
𝑔𝑟
This slope represents the empirical value of 𝑚2
.
−1 −1/2 𝑔𝑟
13. 9 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 = 𝑚2
2
−1 −1/2 9.81 𝑚/𝑠 ×0.361 𝑚
13. 9 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 = 𝑚2
2
−1 −1/2 2 9.81 𝑚/𝑠 ×0.361 𝑚
(13. 9 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 ) = 𝑚2
2
9.81 𝑚/𝑠 ×0.361 𝑚
𝑚2 = −1 −1/2 2 = 0. 0184 ± 0. 006 𝑘𝑔
(13.9 𝑚𝑠 𝑘𝑔 )
|0.0184 𝑘𝑔−0.01 𝑘𝑔|
% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 0.01 𝑘𝑔
= 84% 𝑒𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟
Calculating uncertainty of mass of the hanging mass
𝑟𝑒𝑙. 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = 𝑟𝑒𝑙. 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒 + 𝑟𝑒𝑙. 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
± 0.005 𝑚
𝑟𝑒𝑙. 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = ± 28. 8% + 0.361 𝑚
= ± 30. 2%
𝑎𝑏𝑠. 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 = ± 30. 2% × 0. 0184 𝑘𝑔 = ± 0. 006 𝑘𝑔
Discussion (Ex. 1)
2
𝑚𝑣
a) The equation 𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
is somewhat a good model for our data in Experiment 1. As seen in
the graph, when linearized, the data fits a straight line relatively well, indicated by the correlation
coefficient of 0.9. This shows that the relationship between the hanging mass, 𝑚1, and the
spinning velocity, 𝑣, is indeed 𝑚1 ∝ 𝑣, since those two variables are the things that we
graphed. However, we do have an error of 84% in the value for the slope of the line, which
indicates that our experimental conditions may have differed from ideal conditions by a constant
factor. This could have come from a mis-measurement in the mass of the spinning mass; from
friction and air resistance; or from human error.
The correlation between mass and velocity follows the logic given by Oxford’s Physics
Course Companion, which provides that an object in transitional equilibrium requires equal
opposing forces (Homer et al. 52). Our system was assumed to be in equilibrium with respect to
its vertical motion, experiencing no observable vertical acceleration; in this case there must be a
tension force equal and opposite to the gravitational force provided by the mass. Changing the
hanging mass thus requires a change in tension, and the tension force acts as the centripetal
force for the observed circular motion. The course companion also provides that centripetal
2
𝑚𝑣
force is defined by 𝑟
(Homer et al. 99). Since Fg = FT = FC, and since r and m are constants in
our system it follows that velocity must change in direct relation to gravitational force, and thus
in direct relation to the hanging mass.
b) As already discussed, our graph shows that 𝑚1 ∝ 𝑣, where 𝑚1 is the hanging mass. We
know that in this situation, following the previously stated logic from the course companion,
𝐹𝑔 = 𝐹𝑐 because the system is in equilibrium and there are no other vertical forces. The course
companion gives a definition for Fg of 𝐹𝑔 = 𝑚1𝑔 (Homer et al. 44), and explains that it applies to
this situation because 𝑚1 is hanging (Homer et al. 44). This means that 𝐹𝑐= 𝑚1𝑔. Substituting
𝐹𝑐
this equation into the first equation gives that 𝑔
∝ 𝑣, or 𝐹𝑐 ∝ 𝑣. This means that the square
of velocity is proportional to centripetal force. This lines up with our equation from the start:
2
𝑚𝑣
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
.
Experiment #2: Changing the Radius
Data and Calculations (Ex. 2)
Table 5: Calculated Period vs Change in Radii
Mass (±0.001kg) Radius Revolutions Time (±0.01s) Period (s)
(±0.005m)
10 3.05 0.305
10 2.77 0.277
0.232
10 2.74 0.274
10 2.77 0.277
10 2.54 0.254
10 2.71 0.271
0.275
10 2.74 0.274
10 2.77 0.277
40 12.24 0.306
0.100
10 3.21 0.321
0.321
10 3.60 0.360
10 3.23 0.323
10 3.67 0.367
10 3.63 0.363
0.361
10 3.46 0.346
10 3.57 0.357
10 3.91 0.391
0.400
10 3.45 0.345
10 2.70 0.270
10 2.98 0.298
Example calculation for period:
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 12.24
𝑇 = 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
= 40
= 0. 306𝑠
Table 6: Calculated Velocity vs. Radius
Radius ( ±0.005m) Average Period (s) Average Velocity (m/s)
0.232 0.283 ± 0.02 5.15 ± 0.5
0.275 0.269 ± 0.01 6.42 ± 0.4
0.321 0.327 ± 0.05 6.17 ± 1
0.361 0.358 ± 0.01 6.34 ± 0.3
0.400 0.326 ± 0.01 7.71 ± 0.3
Example calculation for velocity:
2π𝑟 2π × 0.361 𝑚
𝑣= 𝑇
= 0.358𝑠
= 6. 34 𝑚/𝑠
Example calculation for uncertainty of average period:
(Data taken from table 5)
𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛
2
= 𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦
0.305 𝑠 − 0.274 𝑠
2
= ± 0. 02𝑠
Example calculation for uncertainty of velocity:
Data taken from table 5:
𝑈𝑎𝑏𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = ±0. 005𝑚
𝑈𝑎𝑏𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 = ±0. 02𝑠
0.005𝑚
𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = 0.232𝑚
= 0. 02155
0.02𝑠
𝑈𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑑 = 0.283𝑠
= 0. 07067
Since we are dividing, we add up the relative uncertainties of the radius and average period:
0. 02155 + 0. 07067 = 0. 09222
Convert back to absolute uncertainty:
5. 15 𝑚/𝑠 × 0. 09222 = 0. 47 ≈ ±0. 5 𝑚/𝑠
Graph 2: Velocity vs 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
Purple is the linear regression; red is the max slope line; blue is the min slope line
The equation for this line is
2
𝑦 = 𝑦 = 13. 12357𝑥 − 1. 00675, 𝑅 = 0. 7433, 𝑟 = 0. 8621
1/2 −1/2
𝑀𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒: 11. 6717261591 ≈ 11. 7𝑚 𝑠
1/2 −1/2
𝑀𝑎𝑥 𝑠𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑒: 22. 2823863037 ≈ 22. 3 𝑚 𝑠
Calculating uncertainty of slope:
1/2 −1/2 1/2 −1/2
𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛 22.3 𝑚 𝑠 − 11.7 𝑚 𝑠 1/2 −1/2
𝑈𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑦 = 2
= 2
= 5. 3 ≈ ± 5 𝑚 𝑠
1/2 −1/2
Slope = 13. 1 ± 5 𝑚 𝑠
Linearization Process:
2
𝑚𝑣
𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
2 𝐹𝑐𝑟
𝑣 = 𝑚
2 𝐹𝑐
𝑣 = 𝑚
𝑟
𝐹𝑐 2
To linearize, 𝑚
can be the slope, and y can equal 𝑣 and x can equal 𝑟. As such, to linearize we
2
can plot either 𝑣 𝑣𝑠. 𝑟 or 𝑣 𝑣𝑠 𝑟, making . We chose the former.
Using the above derivation, we see that V and R are proportionally related. This is confirmed by
the graph, which shows that as the radius increases, so does the velocity.
Discussion (Ex. 2)
a. Yes, the equation is a good model for our data in Experiment 2. Firstly, by the equation,
the radius and velocity should be proportional, and should follow a linear relationship
2
when 𝑣 is plotted against 𝑟. Both of these are reflected in our data, as shown in the
2
graph, where the linear regression has an 𝑅 value of 0.7433 and an r value of 0.8621.
𝐹𝑐
Additionally, the slope of the linear regression is 𝑚2
, where m2 is the mass of the
swinging bob and Fc is the centripetal force on the swinging bob. Fc here is equal to the
force of tension, FT applied by the hanging mass, m1. Since the hanging mass is kept
stationary, we know that FT equals the weight of the bob, Fg, or m1g. As such, the slope
𝑚1𝑔
should be equal to 𝑚2
, or the square root of the ratio of the hanging mass to the
swinging mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity. Calculating this with the
values for the masses used during the experiment, we get a calculated slope of:
𝑚1𝑔 2
(0.1𝑘𝑔)(9.8𝑚/𝑠 ) 1/2 −1/2
𝑚2
= 0.01𝑘𝑔
= 9. 990𝑚 𝑠
The slope of our regression is 13.124, which means we have an error of 24%, which is
rather reasonable considering the large possibility for human error during data collection.
2
𝑚𝑣
Therefore, using 𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
as a model for our data is very apt, as the theoretical
predictions match up to our calculated and collected values.
Our data is reflective of Isaac Newton’s logic when deriving the equation. After
reasoning that the sum of change in velocity of an object moving on a circular path could
be defined by ∑ ∆𝑣 = 2π𝑣 (Newton and Henry 637), Newton found acceleration,
∆𝑣 Σ∆𝑣 2π𝑟
∆𝑡
= 𝑇
using the period value for which 𝑇 = 𝑣
(Newton and Henry 638). In doing
this Newton establishes the relationship between radius and velocity in respect to
circular motion, a direct relationship which is reflected by our data and proven by its
correlation to Newton’s equation.
Based on the IOSR journal and their usage of linearizing data through a “centripetal
force apparatus”, they corroborate that the equation is a good model of the data
collected in experiment 2. Since knowing that 𝐹𝑐 = 𝑚𝑔, we can substitute the centripetal
2 𝐹𝑐
force question 𝑣 = 𝑚
𝑟 = 𝑔𝑟, this demonstrates that the square of the velocities is
directly proportional to the radius. Also, since the tangential velocity is related to the
2
2π𝑟 2 4π𝑟
period described in the journal 𝑣 = 𝑇
, which yields what is 𝑣 = 2 which further
𝑇
supports the linearization dependence between variables. The IOSR source explained
that data may be scattered due to limitations such as timing uncertainties, air resistance,
and slight variations of the radius. It said that a “correct mathematical proportionality is
sufficient to validate the physical model.” Therefore, the linear trend, and the theoretical
predictions are enough evidence to confirm that the centripetal force equation is
appropriate for experiment 2.
b. The data set presented through the graph tells us that speed and radius are proportional
to each other. We see that since the slope is positive, as the radius increases, so does
the velocity. This makes sense using the theoretical model, because, since the swinging
mass is at a constant speed, it is undergoing uniform circular motion, meaning that the
centripetal force is constant. Since the mass is also constant, we see that the velocity is
directly proportional to the square root of the radius.
A further explanation of velocity which connects it to radius and proves the relationship
our graph resembles is provided in the textbook Fundamentals of Physics. Its
established that tangential velocity is always perpendicular to radius, and from there
concluded through trigonometric princip
Combined Discussion (Ex. 1 & 2)
In our first experiment, we changed the mass of the hanging mass while keeping the radius of
the swinging mass constant. This required us to spin the swinging mass at a higher speed. This
is because increasing the mass of the hanging mass increased the force of gravity on that
mass. In order to keep the radius of the swinging mass constant, we would have to create a
centripetal force, in this case the force of tension, that would counteract the force of gravity on
2
𝑚𝑣
the hanging mass. Because 𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
and the radius and swinging mass were constant, the
only way to increase the centripetal force is to increase the velocity of the swinging mass. This
is the relationship we investigated in experiment 1. In our second experiment, we changed the
radius of the swinging mass but kept the hanging mass constant. This also required us to
increase the speed of the swinging mass. This is because since we kept the hanging mass
constant, the force of tension, and thus the centripetal force, remained constant. The swinging
mass was constant, and thus the only way to increase the radius would be to increase the
speed of the swinging mass. This is the relationship we investigated in experiment 2. In both
experiments, we had to keep the speed of the swinging mass constant during each trial.
However, the swinging masses were still accelerating, because their direction of motion is
changing via the centripetal force. The net force on the swinging mass was greater than 0, but
perpendicular to the direction of motion.
Conclusion
2
𝑚𝑣
In this experiment, we set out to empirically prove the equation 𝐹𝑐 = 𝑟
, which relates
the centripetal force of an object in circular motion, 𝐹𝑐, to its mass, 𝑚, velocity, 𝑣, and radius, 𝑟.
In order to do this, we set up a swinging mass which was attached to a hanging mass, then
spun it around such that the swinging mass held up the hanging mass with centripetal force. We
measured the time it took for the mass to do a certain number of revolutions, allowing us to
calculate 𝐹𝑐 as being equal to the weight of the hanging mass; 𝑚 as the mass of the swinging
mass; 𝑣 as a function of period and radius; and 𝑟 as the length of the string.
In experiment 1, we measured the change in velocity, 𝑣, when we varied the centripetal
force, 𝐹𝑐, by changing the mass of the hanging mass while keeping all other variables the same.
After graphing this data, this showed empirically that centripetal force is proportional to velocity
squared, as predicted by the formula. In experiment 2, we measured the change in velocity, 𝑣,
when we varied the radius of the string, 𝑟 while keeping all other variables the same. When
graphed, this data empirically confirmed that velocity is directly proportional to the square root of
radius, once again confirming the formula.
Qualitatively, when spinning the mass, we could feel the centripetal force acting on the
hanging mass, seeing it falling down when the velocity was too low and traveling up when the
velocity was too high. This gave us a real-world understanding of the centripetal force equation,
showing how velocity must be kept at a specific constant in order for centripetal force to stay the
same.
Overall, this experiment simultaneously gave us a better understanding of the equation
for centripetal force and empirically proved it by using a real world example of circular motion.
todo:
add academic sources to discussions fro experiment 1 and 2
also “3 points referencing academic sources” for specifically discussion 2a
mla citations + works cited
Finish uncertainties
Tables
Slopes
Other
Appendix
Linearizing data for experiment 2, and finding the slope
Free body diagrams of the situation
Link to the Desmos graph used for the graphs of this lab:
[Link]
Works Cited
Newton, Isaac, and Richard Conn Henry. “Circular motion.” American Journal of Physics, vol.
68, no. 7, 1 July 2000, pp. 637–639, [Link]
Homer, David, et al. Oxford Resources for IB DP Physics Course Companion. Oxford University
Press, 2023.
“10. Centripetal Force.” 10. Centripetal Force | UCLA Physics & Astronomy,
[Link]/content/10-centripetal-force. Accessed 8 Jan. 2026. Edited
by Ganesh Ramamurthi
Walker, Jearl, et al. Fundamentals of Physics. 10th ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2014.
[Link]
El-Zayat, et. al. “Centripetal Force Lab Report.” IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP),
12(6), 2020, pp. 27-34.
[Link]