Part I: As the first lab of the Physics 2 curriculum, our class completed a lab experiment that introduced us students to a new concept that would be a foundation to the future topics that we learn in this class. In this lab activity, we used a lab cart on a flat track to compare the collision of the cart with a force sensor with and without the plunger during different trials. The materials that we would need for this activity are a lab cart on a flat track, a timer, a force sensor, and a Ti-Nspire Calculator.
The Ti-Nspire Calculator was connected to the force sensor in order to track and create data that would be shown in graphs on the calculator. Because we had to compare the collision of the cart with the force sensor with and without the plunger, it would force us to run two trials in total (one run with the plunger, and one run without the plunger).
Once all of the materials were prepared, I began with run one, which was with the plunger, and later run two, without the plunger. After running both trials, assuming that accurate data was gleaned, I began to analyze and compare the data obtained from the force sensor.
The Ti-Nspire Calculator created “data and statistics” graphs as Force (N) by Time (s) graphs. In order to easily see the physical differences between the two graphs, we manipulated the menu of the calculator and placed both graphs on the same screen, one on top of the other. In the data I collected, run one (with plunger) graph was physically more round than that of run two (without plunger) as run two’s graph was much more sharp and looked more of a triangle like shape. As technologically innovative as the Ti-Nspire Calculator is, it also calculated the time of impact for each run.
The Essay on A Lab Report Of Forces Being In Equilibrium
The purpose of this lab was to understand equilibrium. To do this, you must find the equilibrant of the resultant of three vectors, both mathematically and graphically and test the results. Procedure: A) Put the weights necessary for each of the vector forces on each hook. B) Set the wheels of the force table at the proper angles, including the calculated equilibrant. C) When placing the hooks on ...
The start time of impact for run one was 1. 78 seconds and the end time was 1. 90 seconds, therefore the duration of impact was 0. 12 seconds. For run two, the start time of impact was 1. 82 seconds, and the end time was 1. 88 seconds, so the duration of impact was 0. 06s. It was peculiar to find that the duration of impact with the plunger was approximately twice as long than without the plunger for me, as well as the majority of my classmates. Next, by using these graphs, I found the peak force of both runs and after discovering the peak forces; I found a noticeably different amount of force between these runs.
The peak force for run one was 12. 64 N, and the peak force without the plunger was 19. 49 N. Although there is a great difference between these two numbers, it does make sense because the plunger causes the cart to hit the force sensor with more of a cushion and absorbed much of the energy when colliding into the censor, which makes the direct impact with the force sensor less than a direct impact of the cart with the flat side. Later we calculated the impulse of both of these trials using the Ti-Nspire Calculator, which named impulse as the “integral. In order to calculate the impulse, we used the calculator and calculated the area of the graph for each graph.
The impulse of run one was 0. 947 N? s and the impulse of run two was 0. 584 N? s. As a class, we came to a conclusion that the impulse of the cart with the plunger was larger than that of a cart without the plunger. Lastly, we used our previous calculations (impulse and duration of impact) in order to calculate the average force of the run. The formula to find average force is impulse divided by duration of impact. The average force of run one was (0. 947/0. 2s) 7. 89 N, and the average force of run two was (0. 584/0. 06s) 9. 73 N.
The Term Paper on Porter Five Forces
What is Porter’s 5 Forces analysis? What are the main aspects of Porter’s 5 Forces analysis? How to write Good Porter’s 5 Forces analysis of a company? Where to find information for Porter’s 5 Forces analysis? Porter’s Five Forces Examples; Reports on Different Companies Introduction There is continuing interest in the study of the forces that impact on an ...
Moreover, the average force with the plunger is less than that of the average for without the plunger. Also, it was consistent that the average force of both trials was both significantly less than the peak force for each corresponding trial. In conclusion, there were many differences between the calculations found between the trials with and without the plungers of the lab cart. The key differences were the differences between duration of impact, average force, and impulse of both trials.
Part II: As a follow-up lab activity to Part I, we completed a lab in which was to compare the impulse applied to the cart and the change of momentum of the cart. Our goal was to support with Impulse-Momentum Theory with the results that we collected. To begin, we would need a few additional materials to conduct this lab activity. This lab required the use of both the CBR motion sensor as well as the force censor to record the position of the cart as well as the force of the cart once it collides with the force sensor.
In order to use both of these sensors simultaneously, Mr. Patterson introduced a new technology and it was named “lab cradle,” which in basic terms, was a multi-channeled data collector with multiple USB ports, and allowed for the connection of more than one sensor. Once these materials were plugged in and ready to use, we began to run trials by pushing the lab cart across a flat track and starting the sensors at the same time to record data. After running a few trials to obtain decent data, the Ti-Nspire showed two graphs that were Force (N) vs. Time (s) and Position vs. Time (s).
Both graphs were in the shape of triangles, but the Force graph looked much slimmer because we were not able to zoom into the duration of the collision alone. Upon collecting this, I was able to find the impulse, which turned out to be 0. 785 N? s. Later, we created a position vs. time graph that appeared to be a triangle as well. We used this graph to find the velocity of the cart before the collision and after, which were the left and right side of the graph respectively.
We found the velocity by placing a line of best fit over the points and finding the slopes of each line. The initial velocity of my run was 0. 819 m/s and the final velocity was -0. 486 m/s, therefore the change in velocity was -1. 305 m/s. Using this information, I could plug it into the formula J=m*vf- m*vi. Once plugged in 0. 785 N? s? 0. 671 kg? m/s. Although the Impulse-Momentum Theory states that impulse should be equivalent to momentum, my data shows that it supports this theory because the impulse is relatively similar to momentum.
The Essay on Fan Cart Lab Conclusion
We did a fan cart for our physics class the other day. To set up the lab first, we measured the effect of the mass of the fan cart on the acceleration of the cart. The mass of the fan cart was the independent variable and acceleration was the dependent variable. We kept the speed of the cart on medium, and calculated the acceleration and motion. As a result, we had figured out that the bigger the ...
