STEM AND ASSESSMENT EVIDENCE WORKBENCH
Model uniform circular-motion trials from radius, period, and mass evidence, then audit acceleration claims and radial-force implications.
Review output
Load the worked example to inspect realistic inputs, or enter anonymous classroom or laboratory evidence. Results remain in this browser tab until you copy or download them.
Transparent method
Tangential speed is circumference divided by period: v = 2 pi r / T. Centripetal acceleration is v squared divided by r, equivalently 4 pi squared r divided by T squared. Required net inward force is mass times centripetal acceleration. Claim error is the absolute claimed-minus-modeled acceleration divided by modeled acceleration, expressed as a percentage. A claim within two percent agrees numerically with this ideal model and the entered rounded data; it does not certify the apparatus or experimental result. Compare the model with measured uncertainty, repeat trials, inspect whether radius stayed fixed, and identify which forces combine to provide the radial net force. A large error should trigger unit, period-count, radius-reference, and transcription checks.
Confirm the prompt, approved source, units, symbols, notation, expected model, and review threshold. Keep an unchanged copy of observations or learner responses before editing any row.
Run the worked example, inspect intermediate rows, and compare the evidence with a hand calculation, diagram, physical model, periodic table, or moderated assessment source.
Record the method, assumptions, units, classifications, rounding, and flagged rows. Treat the downloaded report as editable evidence and verify it independently before instruction or assessment.
How to interpret the result
Use before or after a turntable, rotating stopper, simulation, or video investigation when learners need a visible prediction and comparison table. The planner supports a constant-speed, fixed-radius model. It does not infer radius from video, calculate uncertainty, verify attachment strength, select safe apparatus settings, or model changing speed, noncircular paths, drag, friction, or string mass.
The example compares four fictional trials. Holding the 0.50 m radius while halving period from 2.00 s to 1.00 s makes modeled acceleration four times as large. A larger-radius trial shows the separate radius effect. Three claims fall within the disclosed two-percent comparison threshold, while the review trial remains visible with its calculated relative error.
Tangential speed is circumference divided by period: v = 2 pi r / T. Centripetal acceleration is v squared divided by r, equivalently 4 pi squared r divided by T squared. Required net inward force is mass times centripetal acceleration. Claim error is the absolute claimed-minus-modeled acceleration divided by modeled acceleration, expressed as a percentage.
A claim within two percent agrees numerically with this ideal model and the entered rounded data; it does not certify the apparatus or experimental result. Compare the model with measured uncertainty, repeat trials, inspect whether radius stayed fixed, and identify which forces combine to provide the radial net force. A large error should trigger unit, period-count, radius-reference, and transcription checks.
Do not use diameter as radius, confuse period with frequency, time several turns without dividing by the turn count, treat centripetal force as an extra force, or point acceleration along the motion. Do not mix centimeters with meters or grams with kilograms unless the full unit system is converted consistently. Apply safety limits outside this model.
Learning boundary
This browser-local workbench applies only the disclosed model to entered values. It cannot diagnose a learner, certify an experiment, establish a chemical fact, classify a task automatically, or replace teacher and laboratory judgment.
Review checklist
Practical questions
No. Processing occurs in the current browser tab. Avoid names and other personal information, and retain authoritative records only in the system approved by the school.
No. It reports how the entered evidence behaves under one disclosed rule. Ask for reasoning and compare several evidence sources before reaching an educational conclusion.
Treat it as an editable calculation aid. Show your own reasoning, cite required sources, use the course method, and follow the applicable academic-integrity rules.
YOUR NIRMION
