Physics Lab 7

pdf

School

Illinois Institute Of Technology *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

123

Subject

Mechanical Engineering

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by KidEchidnaPerson1463

Experiment 7: Conservation of Energy Note: Since we unknowingly did not complete part 0, we borrowed data from friends who offered to share. In the future, we will make sure to try harder to collect all the data ourselves correctly. Introduction In this lab, our objective was to investigate the conservation of energy using a slider, spring launcher, and various masses. The procedure began with determining the spring constant of the spring launcher, which would enable us to compute the potential and kinetic energy for our experiments in parts 1 and 2. Subsequently, we aimed to draw conclusions about energy conservation based on these calculations. Initially, we were tasked with finding the spring constant using the following formula: 𝑘 = 𝐹 𝑥 For part 2, we determined the spring's potential energy and the slider's kinetic energy using specific formulas. These formulas involved variables such as the spring constant, the difference in the spring's initial and final positions when pulled back, the mass of the slider, and its velocity. 𝑈 = 1 2 𝑘𝑥 2 for potential energy 𝐾 = 1 2 𝑚𝑣 2 for kinetic energy We also utilized the following equation to determine the gravitational potential energy which we used to compare to each different height variation where Ug is the gravitational potential energy, m is mass, g is the gravity constant, and h is the height: 𝑈 𝑔 = 𝑚𝑔ℎ Material and Procedures The experiment comprised three parts: determining the spring constant for part 0, using the spring launcher to project a slider with varying masses for part 1, and adjusting the slider's incline with added boxes to collect data on different angles and masses for part 2. Although we didn't complete part 0, we gathered information from friends on how to collect data for it and tried to understand the process. To find the spring constant, we were supposed to pull the spring launcher back three times at various displacement values to measure the spring's force. In part 1, we employed the spring launcher to propel a slider along a ramp. Initially, we measured the spring's displacement, then the masses, and finally, using PASCO software,

recorded velocities for three attempts. Subsequently, we altered the mass and repeated velocity measurements three times for each mass variation. In part 2, while keeping the mass constant, we changed the height three times to observe variations in velocity corresponding to each height adjustment. The materials utilized in this lab included: ● PASCO Software ● Scale ● Sensor ● Weights ● String ● Cardboard boxes Part 0 Experimental Procedures: 1. Setting up the experimental area including the PASCO sensor and software . 2. Attaching the force sensor to the launcher. 3. Applying force to the spring to create displacement. 4. Repeating steps 2 and 3 until all necessary data is collected. I have written down the steps that should have been performed as described by the same individuals who gave us data. Part 1 Experimental Procedures: 1. Measuring the slider’s weight. 2. Measuring the spring launcher’s Δx. 3. Launching the slider. 4. Repeating steps 1 through 3 until all the necessary data was collected while varying the displacement each time. Part 2 Experimental Procedures: 1. Measuring the fixed mass. 2. Measuring the spring’s Δx, and height between the start and sensor. 3. Launching the slider three times 4. Recording the velocity measured by the software. 5. Repeating steps 2 through 4 until all the necessary data is collected. Results

Part 0 ΔX (m) Force (N) 1 Force (N) 2 Force (N) 3 Force Avg Spring Constant (K) 0.015 12.9 12 12.3 12.4 826.67 0.02 16.3 13.6 14.7 14.87 743.5 0.025 19.6 20.6 20.3 20.17 806.8 0.031 24.3 23.8 23.5 23.87 770 The average spring constant we found was 786.7425. We applied this value in calculating the potential energy for part 1. Part 1 ΔX (m) m (Kg) V(m/s) V(m/s) V(m/s) V avg (m/s) Spring Potential Energy Slider Kinetic Energy 0.075 0.5895 0.11 0.1 0.11 0.11 0.221 0.004 0.08 0.5895 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.252 0.006 0.08 0.9895 0.12 0.8 0.1 0.34 0.252 0.007 0.02 0.1895 0.81 0.8 0.82 0.81 0.016 0.062 0.028 0.1895 1.11 1.12 1.1 1.11 0.308 0.117 0.034 0.1895 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 0.455 0.175 Part 2 ΔX (m) H-h (m) V1 (m/s) V2 (m/s) V 3(m/s) V Avg (m/s Gravitatio nal Potential Energy Slider Kinetic Energy Mechanic al Energy M=0.189 5 0.05 0.015 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.071 0.014 0.085 0.05 0.06 0.28 0.26 0.31 0.28 0.052 0.007 0.059 0.28 0.1895 1.11 1.12 1.1 1.11 0.206 0.117 0.323 0.28 0.2295 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.191 0.101 0.292 0.28 0.2695 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.184 0.093 0.277 0.34 0.1895 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 0.253 0.175 0.428

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

0.34 0.2295 1.27 1.27 1.29 1.28 0.238 0.155 0.393 0.34 0.2695 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.221 0.134 0.355 0.2 0.1895 0.81 0.8 0.82 0.81 0.151 0.062 0.213 0.2 0.2295 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.77 0.143 0.056 0.199 0.2 0.2695 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.132 0.048 0.18 For part 2, our fixed mass was measured to be 0.1895 kg. In our first set of data, we noticed that as the mass of an object increases, its kinetic energy decreases. This happens because friction plays a big role, messing with the system. So, we can't ignore friction. On the other hand, in our second set of data, we saw a clear connection: as the object goes higher, its gravitational energy increases. This shows that energy is being transferred within the system. But, when we looked at our data closely, we found something odd. The energy didn't stay the same throughout the experiment. This could be because we forgot about friction or just made mistakes along the way. Conclusion Throughout our experiment, numerous occurrences of human error arose from our misunderstanding of the lab procedures, leading to its improper completion. Consequently, our data collection fell short, and we overlooked certain aspects. Thus, our dataset proved unreliable and failed to serve its intended purpose. Fortunately, generous peers extended their data, granting us insight into the lab's proper execution and its key takeaways. To address our struggles with data collection and enhance future comprehension, we pledge to exert greater diligence in following instructions during lab sessions, seeking assistance from the TA promptly instead of attempting to troubleshoot independently. Our dataset notwithstanding, our analysis shed light on crucial energy conservation principles. Examination of part 1 data revealed the adverse effects of neglecting friction, resulting in inconsistent mechanical energy readings. Furthermore, through graphical representation demonstrating a linear relationship between

height variations, indicative of external forces, and gravitational potential energy, we effectively visualized energy conservation principles.