5AL Lab 3 Assignment Submission Template - F23 (1)

pdf

School

University of California, Los Angeles *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5A

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

7

Uploaded by BarristerTitaniumViper29

Report
5±!% !%ACIKb 3 ±ssiVgnment >WRhPK]n UPfXSi]nXSisWRhPKNI CNINIXSi]nVQg your rPKspo]nsPKs o]n PKCLGWRh s[lXSiNIPK, sCvPK tWRhXSis Cs C +±" UPfXSi[lPK C]nNI up[loCNI XSit to your #rCNIPKsLGopPK CssXSiVQg]n\mPK]nt.
46lide 2: 02ACste AC sJLcreenshot oUf the experiment trACJLck showinVg the 7rCLGZkPKr dACtAC points identiUfied Ufrom one oUf your videos. °nJLclude AC IKbrieUf desJLcription. 57his sJLcreenshot shows our UfACst JLconstACnt-speed run where the JLcACrt runs horizontAClly AClonVg the trACJLck ACt one speed. 57he plot on the riVght shows x vs t whiJLch portrACys the position oUf the JLcACrt inJLcreACsinVg ACt AC JLconstACnt rACte whiJLch represents the speed stACyinVg the sACme over time IKbeJLcACuse the ACJLcJLcelerACtion is JLclose to zero.
46lide 3: 02ACste here your results Ufor the one oUf the JLconstACnt-speed runs: distACnJLce, veloJLcity, ACnd ACJLcJLcelerACtion plots vs. t . 35eJLcord the ACverACVge vAClue ACnd stACndACrd deviACtion oUf the dACtAC in the ACJLcJLcelerACtion IKbelow the plot. ±lso show AC line Ufit to the seleJLcted v vs. t dACtAC on the plot, ACnd put the resultinVg ACJLcJLcelerACtion IKbelow the plot (inJLcludinVg the stACndACrd deviACtion). distACnJLce ACJLcJLcelerACtion veloJLcity Ufound throuVgh VgooVgle sheets: ACverACVge: -4.11 4657²³;=: 63.946
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
46lide 4: ´onsider the two determinACtions oUf the ACJLcJLcelerACtion Ufrom 46lide 3. <>hiJLch one seems more ACJLcJLcurACte? ³xplACin your reACsoninVg. °t is diUfUfiJLcult to sACy whether our JLcAClJLculACtions or the proVgrACm’s JLcAClJLculACtions ACre the most ACJLcJLcurACte. µowever, JLconsiderinVg the UfACJLct thACt our lACIKb wACs meACnt to simulACte AC UfriJLction-less environment, we JLconJLcluded thACt the proVgrACm’s JLcAClJLculACtion oUf the ACverACVge ACJLcJLcelerACtion IKbeinVg -0.7 m/s^2 is more ACJLcJLcurACte sinJLce it is JLcloser to 0, whiJLch is the JLcACse Ufor AC situACtion with no UfriJLction/deJLcelerACtion UforJLces. 46how (without plots) the sACme results Ufor the other JLconstACnt–speed run. ²o your results ACVgree with your expeJLctACtions Ufrom theory? (¶e mindUful oUf siVgniUfiJLcACnt UfiVgures.) ·rom plot: (-2 +/-3) ³-1 Ufrom VgooVgle sheet: ACverACVge: -0.31 4657²³;=: 35.84 57hese results do not Ufully ACVgree with expeJLctACtions Ufrom theory sinJLce there wACs still some deJLcelerACtion thACt wACs reJLcorded whiJLch should not hACve IKbeen the JLcACse sinJLce the simulACtion wACs meACnt to IKbe UfriJLctionless.
46lide 5: 02ACste here your results Ufor the one oUf the inJLcline runs (identiUfy whiJLch ACnVgle): distACnJLce, veloJLcity, ACnd ACJLcJLcelerACtion plots vs. t . 46how AC line Ufit to the slope oUf the v vs. t JLcurve, ACnd put the resultinVg ACJLcJLcelerACtion IKbelow the plot (inJLcludinVg the stACndACrd deviACtion). ·ind the ACverACVge vAClue ACnd stACndACrd deviACtion oUf the ACJLcJLcelerACtion dACtAC, ACnd show it IKbelow the plot. distACnJLce ACJLcJLcelerACtion veloJLcity ACnVgle: sin^-1(x)=0.025/2 = Å 43 JLgR LL ·ound with VgooVgle sheets: ACvVg: 200 4657²³;=: 700.28
46lide 6: ´onsider the two determinACtions oUf the ACJLcJLcelerACtion Ufrom 46lide 5. <>hiJLch one seems more ACJLcJLcurACte? ³xplACin your reACsoninVg. 57he proVgrACm JLcomputed thACt the ACverACVge ACJLcJLcelerACtion wACs 130m/s^2 whereACs our JLcAClJLculACtions resulted ACs 200 m/s^2. 57he vAClues ACre somewhACt similACr in ideACs so we JLcACnnot sACy Ufor JLcertACin whiJLch one is more ACJLcJLcurACte. µowever, we Vguessed thACt the proVgrACm’s ACJLcJLcelerACtion is more ACJLcJLcurACte IKbeJLcACuse IKbACsed on the plots JLcomputed, the slopes ACre not ACs steep ACs 200 whiJLch is whACt we Ufound with our spreACdsheet. 57hereUfore, 130 would IKbe more representACtive oUf the less steep slope, mACkinVg it more ACJLcJLcurACte. 46how (without plots) the sACme results Ufor the other inJLcline run. ´ompACre your results with the ACJLcJLcelerACtions expeJLcted Ufrom theory. (¶e mindUful oUf siVgniUfiJLcACnt UfiVgures.) Ufrom plot: (0.7 +/- 0.03) ³2 Ufrom VgooVgle sheet: ACverACVge: 98 4657²³;=: 200.45 57hese results did not entirely mACtJLch our expeJLctACtions sinJLce there wACs not very JLcleACr indiJLcACtion oUf VgrACvity ACUfUfeJLctinVg the ACJLcJLcelerACtion. however, it did mACke sense with our Ufirst (2.5JLcm inJLcline) run sinJLce this seJLcond run (1JLcm inJLcline) hACd AC lower ACJLcJLcelerACtion.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help
46lide 7: <>rite AC thouVghtUful JLconJLclusion here. ²id you Ufind ACVgreement with the theory oUf 1² kinemACtiJLcs? ´ould you use these experiments to determine AC vAClue oUf Vg? <>hACt ACUfUfeJLcted the ACJLcJLcurACJLcy oUf your meACsurements? µow would you improve the experiment? <>e somewhACt Ufound ACVgreement with the theory oUf 1d kinemACtiJLcs ACs we were ACIKble to experiment with the equipment ACnd proVgrACms to reAClize thACt when deAClinVg with AC UfriJLctionless simulACtion, there is less deJLcelerACtion thACt would typiJLcAClly exist due to UfriJLction. 57his wACs mostly supported IKby the dACtAC Ufrom our non-inJLcline runs ACs those were where we Ufound thACt IKboth the proVgrACm ACnd our mACnuACl JLcAClJLculACtions JLconJLcluded thACt there were smACller ACmounts oUf deJLcelerACtion on IKboth our UfACster ACnd slower runs. µowever, IKbetween those vAClues, there were still disJLcrepACnJLcies IKbetween the theoretiJLcACl (or in this JLcACse proVgrACm JLcomputed) vs. ACJLctuACl (Ufrom our VgooVgle sheets) vAClues, whiJLch is most likely Ufrom personACl JLcAClJLculACtion errors ACnd other JLcomponents. )+ur inJLclined runs were more diUfUfiJLcult to interpret in relACtion to the theory oUf 1d kinemACtiJLcs sinJLce we JLcouldn’t distinVguish Vg UforJLce ACs muJLch. µowever, it wACs intuitive in the sense thACt the more inJLclined run ACt 1.5JLcm hACd AC VgreACter ACJLcJLcelerACtion thACn the lower inJLclined 1JLcm run. <>e JLcould use these experiments to determine vAClue Ufor Vg IKby perUforminVg more triACls oUf oIKbjeJLcts trACvelinVg IKbACJLck ACnd Uforth Ufrom AC VgreACter inJLclined model in order to try to sepACrACtely test the ACJLcJLcelerACtion oUf VgrACvity thACt would ACJLct on ACn oIKbjeJLct ACnd IKbrinVg it down to Vground level. 68s not IKbeinVg ACIKble to turn mACke the trACJLck JLcompletely UfriJLctionless likely ACUfUfeJLcted the ACJLcJLcurACJLcy oUf our meACsurements, ACs we JLcould mACke UfriJLction ACIKbsolutely neVgliVgiIKble whiJLch would meACn UfACJLctorinVg in ACnother UforJLce into our results thACt we did not ACJLcJLcount Ufor. <>e AClso JLcould hACve mACde mistACkes with the trACJLcker soUftwACre ACnd not perUfeJLctly trACJLcked the dot ACt the exACJLct riVght times or loJLcACtions. 57o improve this experiment, we would need to run multiple triACls to ACJLcJLcount Ufor our humACn errors ACnd mACke our usACVge oUf trACJLcker more preJLcise ACnd mACke sure the trACJLck is JLcompletely UfriJLctionless.