Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
APSC 100 Module 2 Tutorial Lab 1.docx

APSC 100 Module 2 Tutorial Lab 1.docx

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8|Likes:
Published by Ian Ip

More info:

Published by: Ian Ip on Jan 29, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





 APSC 100 Module 2 Tutorial Lab #1
Name: Ian IpStudent Number: 10011223
Engineering Section: 205
Table #1: Elasticity valuesSingle Trial StatisticalAnalysisGraphical AnalysisBig Ball, diameter = 4.260 +/- 0.005cm
0.671+/-0.030 0.622+/-0.054 0.636+/-0.005
Small Ball, diameter = 2.970 +/- 0.005cm
0.850+/-0.030 0.805+/-0.036 0.817+/-0.007
 The uncertainty of single trial was significantly higher when compared to that of the multiple trials basedgraphical analysis. The result was expected because multiple trials are able to identify random errorsand find a line of best fit among all data points. Whereas single trial make use of only one single datapoint, which can sometime be an error itself. The single trial uncertainty should be bigger because thereare no other data points to cross reference to. In multiple trials, the use of linear regression allow amore accurate determination of the line of best fit (and subsequently the slope, which is the elasticityvalue) and significantly lowers the uncertainty by 83% of the big ball single trial uncertainty and 77% of the small ball.
 The data obtained from both balls demonstrated that elasticity values did not vary by height. Based onthe residual plot of both balls (Refer to appendix 2), the data points of both balls are close to thehorizontal axis. This was expected because of the following rearrangement of the elasticity formula:
The Elasticity value of any object is given as the rebound height (
divided by the initial height (
 By rearranging the original equation to the familiar y=mx+b form (Elasticity =0 at (0, 0)), we can now plotthe data recorded where the rebound height is plotted in the y axis and the dropped height is plotted inthe x axis (Seeing as the
is common in the small and big ball, and that the both sets of y values will beplotted against the common x values
). The new rearranged equation is a linear equation, whichmeans that the slope (Elasticity) has to be constant and that the dropped height and rebound heighthave no effects on the elasticity because they are proportional to each other by a common proportion,elasticity.
 The elasticity values of the two balls tested in the lab are not the same. After calculating elasticity fromthe three trial methods, all of which confirmed that the elasticity of the small ball is greater than that of the big ball. Furthermore, the uncertainty obtained from graphical analysis (Most accurate method)show that the small ball has a bigger uncertainty than that of the big ball. The reason for this is becausethe elasticity value is bigger.
 The Equation shows that if all the variables in the bracket are constant, then the uncertainty should bedirectly proportional to elasticity itself.
 During the lab, systematic errors are constantly being eliminated with careful setups. For example, onemember of the pair made sure that she was eyelevel with where the ball rebounded to. Rather thanlooking and approximating from above, she made sure that parallax was eliminated from the possiblelist of systematic errors. In addition, it was ensured that the actual drop height did not vary much fromthe measuring taped stand by lining up a ruler from the stand and out approximately 40cm away fromthe stand where the ball was dropped, so the ball would not hit the stand and affect the results.The lines of best fit of both balls have the intercept of zero, verifying the effectiveness in systematicerror reduction.
 The sources of random errors are listed in order of most to least significant:
The accuracy of the measurement of rebound height (Eyeballing)
The accuracy of the measurement of dropped height (Eyeballing)
The inconsistency of each ball drop (the release of the ball)
 After going through the original pot and regression line, the error estimates made reflected themeasurement errors that were made during the lab. Although it was initially expected that themeasurement errors would have been higher before the data sets were plotted. The data pointsremained very closely with the regression line and the error bars on each point consistently crosses withthe line of best fit.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->