7 views

Uploaded by Benjamin Zamora

© All Rights Reserved

- Accenture Test
- Time and Distance
- College Physics Lecture I
- Time-Speed-Distance.pdf
- DPP Kinematics
- TCS interview Questions 2
- Bukhovtsev Et Al Problems in Elementary Physics
- topcoder problem
- [Aptitude Q] STD Table Application in Train Man Bridge, Time and Work Problems
- Manual
- MP2dd
- CP-S-HW-ch-2
- Puzzles as Programmer Interview Question
- motion lab
- COAS_P1_Ch02_it
- Paper GS Mains I and II 2004
- Class 9 Science Ch 8
- Measuring Motion
- R_02154
- Mjerni Trafici

You are on page 1of 6

09/15/2014

Period 2

Objective:

The objective of the Physics 3000 Backwards lab was to calculate our average times and

speeds while running five different trials which each varied in 500 cm.

Procedural Notes and Data:

Before our group started the lab experiment, we all talked about how we were going to

split up the parts and assign each person a different job. For example, my job was to make the

data table on a piece of paper so I can record everyones different speed for each of the distances.

I split my paper into four sections and I wrote down each persons name, the five different

distances (1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500, 3,000 cm), and I left three blank lines for each distance to

record their speed trials for each. It looked like this;

______'s Time

Distance (cm)

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Trial 1(s)

__

__

__

__

__

Trial 2(s)

__

__

__

__

__

Trial 3(s)

__

__

__

__

__

Other people in your group should have jobs too. Before we could actually start our time trials,

someone had to use the measuring meter wheel. Every time you roll the wheel one meter you

heard one click. Because one meter is equal to 100 cm (if you didnt know you could plug into

the formula, WORK SHOWN BELOW), for the first distance of 1,000 cm you had to walk in a

straight line until you heard ten clicks. We put a marker down and wrote on our marker

indicating that was 1,000 cm. Then from that 1,000 cm mark, we walked straight again until we

heard 5 more clicks because that was our next distance of 1,500 cm. We then placed another

marker at that final spot. Then we continued from the 1,500 mark and walked in a straight line

again until we heard 5 clicks, and we placed another marker down with the distance written on it.

That was the 2,000 cm mark. We continued those steps until the final distance was 3,000 cm. If

you are using a meter measuring wheel, this should be a little easier to follow:

Formula: Meters = cm/ 100.00

Example: How many meters is 1,000 cm? Meters= cm/100.00 M = 1,000 cm / 100.00 = 10

Meters. Therefore, if there are 10 meters in 1,000 cm then each meter is 100 centimeters.

(Start) 0 cm = 0 clicks + 10 clicks =1,000 cm + 5 clicks = 1,500 cm + 5 clicks= 2,000

cm + 5 clicks= 2,500 cm + 5 clicks= 3,000 cm

TIP: It is easiest if you start from your most recent marker, and continue walking until you hear 5

clicks. That will give you your next distance for each.

Also, someone in our group was responsible for holding the stopwatch and he/she had to stand at

the finish line to stop the clock once the runner crossed the finish line. They screamed out the

time to me and I recorded it on my data table, however, I rounded to the nearest tenth each time.

For example; for trial one at 1,000 cm I ran it in 3.46 seconds, which if rounded to the nearest

tenth is 3.5 seconds. After we finished assigning our jobs, setting up our markers, and drawing

out our data table we were able to begin the actual trials. Each person had to run all of the 5

distances three times each, therefore, each person had a total of 15 times in the end. One person

started at the starting line and he/she ran backwards at any pace they wanted to until they reached

the distance being trialed. We recorded that persons time, rounded to the tenth, and then they

ran the same heat two more times. Each person did this three times each for 1,000, 1,500, 2,000,

2,500, and 3,000 cm. Times varied between each person. After recording all of the times, our

finished data table looked like this:

Dotan's Time

Distance (cm)

Trial 1 (s)

Trial 2 (s)

Trial 3 (s)

Average Time (s)

1,000

3.5

3.1

3.3

3.3

1,500

4.8

4.6

4.7

4.7

2,000

6.2

6.1

6.2

6.2

2,500

6.8

7

7.1

7

3,000

8.1

8.5

8.4

8.3

Duncan's Time

Distance

Trial 1 (s)

Trial 2 (s)

Trial 3 (s)

Average Time (s)

1,000

4

3.8

3.1

3.6

1,500

4.6

4.7

4.9

4.7

2,000

6

6.7

6.6

6.4

2,500

7

6.7

7.1

7

3,000

8.3

7.9

8.1

8.1

Mike's Time

Distance

Trial 1 (s)

Trial 2 (s)

Trial 3 (s)

Average Time (s)

1,000

3.8

4.3

3.9

4

1,500

4.8

4.8

5.2

4.9

2,000

6

6.4

6.8

6.4

2,500

7.5

8

7.8

7.8

3,000

8.1

9.3

8.8

8.7

Tyler's Time

Distance

Trial 1 (s)

Trial 2 (s)

Trial 3 (s)

Average Time (s)

1,000

3.8

3.4

3.6

3.6

1,500

5.4

5.1

4.9

5.1

2,000

6.7

6.7

6.4

6.6

2,500

7.2

7.2

7.5

7.3

3,000

8.4

8.5

8.7

8.5

In order to find the AVERAGE SPEED, we added up all three of recorded trial times for each

one of the distances (1,000, 1,500, 2,000, 2,500, 3,000 cm) and then we divided it by three. For

example;

Tylers Times for 1,000 cm was: 3.8 s, 3.4 s, 3.6 s

3.8 + 3.4 + 3.6 = 10.8 / 3 = 3.6 seconds was the average speed for 1,000 cm

**YOU MUST ROUND TO NEAREST TENTH**

However, once we recorded all of our times and found the Average Time (s) for each of the

distances, we had to find the Average Speed (cm/s). Each person had 5 average speeds. To find

the Average Speed you need to take each of the distances and divide it by the average time for

that distance.

Formula: Distance (cm) / Average Time (s) for the given distance

Example: Tylers Average Time for 1,000 cm was 3.6 seconds so plug into the formula

1,000 cm / 3.6 s = 277.77 round to tenth = 277.8 cm/s is Tylers Average Speed for 1,000

cm

We had to plug into that formula 5 times for each person. Results shown below:

Distance (cm)

Dotan's Average Speed (cm/s)

Duncan's Average Speed (cm/s)

Mike's Average Speed (cm/s)

Tyler's Average Speed (cm/s)

1,000

303

277.8

250

277.8

1,500

319.1

319.1

306.1

294.1

2,000

322.6

312.5

312.5

303

2,500

357.1

357.1

320.5

342.5

3,000

361.4

370.4

344.8

352.9

3500

y = 403.01x - 377.79

R = 0.9914

Distance (cm)

3000

2500

y = 434.21x - 587.92

R = 0.9813

2000

y = 403.23x - 564.52

R = 0.9919

1500

Series2

Series3

y = 410.17x - 551.27

R = 0.9844

1000

Series1

Series4

500

0

0

10

***************

Dotan = Series 1

Duncan = Series 2

Mike = Series 3

Tyler = Series 4

The Graph above shows Distance (cm) vs Average Time (s) Graph. Our graph shows the trends

of each persons average time for each of the distances. Therefore, by looking at this graph it is

evident that when the distance was increased the average time also increased (meaning got

slower and longer) because of the longer distance you had to run, which as a result, was harder to

keep a fast steady pace. As a result, the average time was affected. By looking at this graph you

could also see slope of each person. The fastest person in the group would have a much steeper

slope because he/she would have a more constant average time, while someone who was a little

slower wouldnt have that steep of a slope because his/her average time is getting slower and

longer.

**Questions**

1. How far could you back pedal in 21 seconds?

3. Using your trendline, how long would it take you to backpedal 5000 cm?

4. Explain how the slope of the graph is equal to the average velocity.

5. Calculate the time (in hours) that it would take you to backpedal to Kings Grant which is 3.5

miles from the Cherokee North front door.

Conclusion:

After finishing our lab and analyzing our results, we were able to report the outcomes of

our experiment. It was evident and obvious that as the distance was increased and got longer, our

average times got longer and our average speed was affected because of this. We ran a total of 15

times, therefore, fatigue kicked in. Our statement that as distance increased, our average times

got longer can easily be proven by looking at our scatter graph. By looking at everyones

trendline, you can see that when distance was increased each time at an increment of 500 cm, the

average times started getting longer and longer hence proving that the longer the distance the

slower your average time will be. Some people in our group ran much faster than others during

the trials, therefore, their average time are much lower and their line is much steeper because

they are rising faster. Anyhow, throughout this lab there were at least two sources of error that

could have impacted our results severely. Because we did our trials on the grass field (instead of

the turf) there could have been uneven surfaces on the field. Although our distance was correctly

measured out, the landscape of the field could have slowed our results down or increased them.

For example, during our 1,000 cm trial there was a little area of grass that went down (ditch),

therefore, this could have slowed down our results because you werent on a straight surface.

You had to run down a little, and then go back up to normal surface. If you run on a much

flatter/straighter surface your time will be faster than one that involves you having to run down a

little slope and back up it until youre on an even surface. Another source of error that we could

of experienced was the environment. First of all we did our experiment early in the morning,

therefore, the grass was soaking wet and it was windy out. Due to the grass being wet, the

measuring wheel we used could have not had as good of traction compared to doing it on a dry,

hard surface. What I mean by that is that since the field was drenched, the wheel could have spun

faster due to the wet grass and therefore, our distances would have been off due to this. Also,

since it was very windy out and we used a pencil or a very light object as our markers, the wind

could have pushed the item farther back or closer without us paying attention. This could easily

affect our results in two ways. It would either make our distances farther which would affect our

times, and or it was closer, therefore, our average times would be quicker than what they should

be. No matter what these would affect our results and our graph.

- Accenture TestUploaded byKumar Saheb
- Time and DistanceUploaded byGunjan Solanki
- College Physics Lecture IUploaded bymaddieecomeau
- Time-Speed-Distance.pdfUploaded byneha
- DPP KinematicsUploaded byMohammed Aftab Ahmed
- TCS interview Questions 2Uploaded byBaBa Somanath
- Bukhovtsev Et Al Problems in Elementary PhysicsUploaded byShaista
- topcoder problemUploaded bylocalet
- [Aptitude Q] STD Table Application in Train Man Bridge, Time and Work ProblemsUploaded byRam Verma
- ManualUploaded byredphoenix2k9
- MP2ddUploaded byabeck1713
- CP-S-HW-ch-2Uploaded bySteve Julius
- motion labUploaded byapi-204136949
- Puzzles as Programmer Interview QuestionUploaded byPrashant Kumar
- COAS_P1_Ch02_itUploaded byDyna Mo
- Paper GS Mains I and II 2004Uploaded byJ saravanan
- Class 9 Science Ch 8Uploaded byYt Studio
- Measuring MotionUploaded byRenz Dela Cruz Arellano
- R_02154Uploaded bySanath Wijerathne
- Mjerni TraficiUploaded byIvan
- science study guide 350202 testbookletUploaded byapi-259832107
- First QuarterUploaded byRoldan Ormilla
- TOC 8 UNIT 1.pdfUploaded byMs Yosela Maharani
- Proposed Policy-water meter accuracy.docxUploaded byYusop Bandaying Masdal
- Ratio and Proportion pdf..pdfUploaded byAbhishek Singh
- Sreedhar'sUploaded byBalu
- 0607_s09_qp_4.pdfUploaded byAnderson Alfred
- TCS Recruitment Rounds 1Uploaded byravindram4
- 3 - Worksheet-Kinematics- B (1)Uploaded bystevan joe
- 0580_s13_qp_22Uploaded byAbdul Rehman

- 1.pdfUploaded bySalvador Arcos
- Pirate Chemistry 2009Uploaded byRezie Dampog Dellava
- Exergy crude oilUploaded byMarcos Garcia Garcia
- IITJEE_2002_P1.pdfUploaded byPawan Babel
- Solid MechanicsUploaded byRodrigo Marin
- Jan 7 kkUploaded byMiguel Dominique Martinez
- Chapter 1Uploaded bybaruaole
- etd7327_RSabzehgarUploaded byBianca Maria Moaca
- CBSE Class 11 Physics Mathematical ToolsUploaded byK_S_Krishna0001
- Defination of RHUploaded byAltaf Khan
- Bernard Bosanquet THE PHILOSOPHICAL THEORY OF THE STATE London 1899Uploaded byfrancis batt
- 2.5 the Effect of ForcesUploaded byshu_nee
- Plate and Shell AnalyseUploaded byNumkang Kang
- CH_03_ HamrrockUploaded byRogelio Perez
- INTRODUCTION TO DIFFUSION IN SOLIDSUploaded bykhare_girish
- isaac newton lawsUploaded byapi-169639475
- Chapter 2. Deformation.pdfUploaded byAhmadLukmanNurKarim
- Bond Energy - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded bySatyendra Nath Pandey
- Wolfson Eup3 Ch14 Test BankUploaded byifghelpdesk
- 091125093033Preview - SS 551-2009Uploaded byandrew LBK
- 3d Analysis of Stress Concentration Factor AndUploaded byprjpublications
- Narayan 2 Et All PaperUploaded byABDOPORS
- A Review on Properties of Tensegrity Tower as an Alternative for Conventional Steel TowersUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Steel Module 4Uploaded bydash1991
- E510 Instruction ManualUploaded byDarshana Chathuranga
- K-SeriesUploaded byinsdel70
- Applications Manual - Selection of Driveline ComponentsUploaded byÉmilie Riverin
- Accurately Calculate Nitrogen Requirement for Pressure Purging _ Glocal Engineering Consulting LimitedUploaded byNadia Hana Soraya
- Dynamic Characteristics of InstrumentsUploaded byAnonymous nJjlquh
- EBCS 11 AnnexUploaded bytadele10