You are on page 1of 10

# Brittany Zinn

Lab 1

1. Objective
The objective of lab 1, Graph Matching, is to study the motion of a student walking
across the room, in order to help us understand the concepts of kinematics. Through the
use of graphs we were to predict, sketch, and test position, as well as velocity, verses
timed kinematic graphs. Using a motion detector that measures the time it takes for a
frequency sound pulse to travel from the detector to the student and back, is how we can
determine the position of the student.
2. Equipment List
Computer
Lab Station 1
Sonia Flores: Lab Partner (Participation 5)
Logger Pro Program
LabQuest Mini
Vernier Motion Detector
1m and 2m meter sticks
3. Preliminary Questions

## Brittany Zinn’s Prediction

Green=constant, an object at rest
Pink=positive direction with constant speed
Gray= object moving in negative direction at constant speed
Orange= object accelerating in the positive direction, starting from rest
the “collect” button to produce a graph of our motion as the other walked away from the detector

## slowly with a constant velocity.

Sonia Flores Prediction of Position Vs Time graph.
Pink=At rest
Green-=moving in + direction at constant speed
orange=moving in – direction at constant speed
red=accelerating in + direction from rest

I agree with Sonia for most of her lines except for her “accelerating in a positive direction from
rest”. Her lines do not indicate a period of rest (if the rest is there I can barely see it) and also
begin to “level out”, “arc”, or stop moving in a steep upward motion when the object should be
accelerating. Our graphs are very similar except hers are much more zoomed in than mine, this is
possibly due to not hitting “auto-scale”.

## 4. Process and Data

Part I: Preliminary Experiments:
4.1. My lab partner and I gathered all the equipment needed for the lab. We connected the
Vernier Motion Detector to the LabQuest Mini, set it to “walk” and placed it at the edge
of the table.
4.2. We measured with the meter stick and used masking tape to mark 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5
and 4m positions on the floor from the motion detector.
4.3. We then opened Logger Pro and opened the file “01a Graph Matching” from the
Physics with Vernier folder as one of us stood 1m from the Motion Detector.
4.4. One of us pressed the “collect” button to produce a graph of our motion as the other
walked away from the detector slowly with a constant velocity.
4.5. We used the software to store our latest run and then used the software to draw a
prediction by using the “collect” button to produce a graph of our motion as the other
walked away from the detector walking faster than we did the first time. (please see
the graphs below)
4.6. We repeated the process to make the graphs required for the Preliminary Questions.
For the first one we stood still at the 1m line. For the second one we stood at the 0.5m
mark walked slowly away from the detector at a constant speed. For the third one we
stood 4m away from the detector and walked slowly towards the detector at a
constant speed. For the fourth one we stood 0. 5m from the detector and walked away
getting faster as we went. (see the graph below) This graph is very similar to my
predicion from the preliminary questions.

4.7. We then repeated all of the steps to make the velocity graph (see graph below). This
graph was very similar to the prediction graph if we were to “auto-scale” or zoom out. I
was not expecting the objects at a constant speed to “arc” at the end in my prediction, I
was expecting the line to continue up in a positive motion for the duration of the time.

## Part II: Position vs. Time Graph Matching

4.8. In Logger Pro we opened the file “01b Graph Matching” from the Physics with Vernier
folder.
4.9. Sonia and I discussed how we would walk to produce the graph shown.
4.10. We then pressed the “collect” button and walked in a way that the graph of our
motion matches the target graph on the computer screen. It took us a few tries to get it
right. Please see the graph (C) below.

Graph C
4.11. We then opened file “01c Graph Matching” and repeated the process using a
new target graph. Please see the graph (D) below.

Graph D
Part III: Velocity vs. Time Graph Matching
4.12. In Logger Pro we opened the file “01d Graph Matching” from the Physics with
Vernier folder.
4.13. Sonia and I discussed how we would walk to produce the graph shown.
4.14. We then pressed the “collect” button and walked in a way that the graph of our
motion matches the target graph on the computer screen. It took us many tries to
“match” the graph, below (E) is our best attempt.
Graph E
4.15. In Logger Pro we opened the file “01e Graph Matching” from the Physics with
Vernier folder.
4.16. Sonia and I discussed how we would walk to produce the graph shown.
4.17. We then pressed the “collect” button and walked in a way that the graph of our
motion matches the target graph on the computer screen. It took us many tries to
“match” the graph, below (F) is our best attempt.

Graph F
4.18. We then removed the masking tape from the floor and put away all of the
equipment that we used.

## 5. Analysis and Calculations

5.1. For the first graph (C) I matched I was still for 1 second at the 1m mark, then walked at
a slow, constant pace for 1 second to the 2.5m mark where I stopped for 3 seconds
then walked to the 1.5m mark in 1.25 seconds, then paused for 2.75 seconds. For the
2nd graph (D) we started at 3m and walked to the 1m mark for 3 seconds then paused
there for 1 second, then walked towards the sensor for 1 second then paused for 2
seconds then walked away from the sensor for 4 seconds.
5.2. A positive slope in the positive or “up” direction means that the subject is walking
forward at a consistent speed. A negative slope in the negative or “down” direction
means that the subject is backwards at a consistent speed.
5.3. When the slope of a position vs. time graph is zero the subject is standing still and not
moving for the entire duration of the collection.
5.4. When the slope of a position vs. time graph is constant the subject is walking at a
constant pace towards or away from the sensor.
5.5. When the slope of a position vs. time graph is changing the subject is either
accelerating or decelerating.
5.6. Part III is complete
5.7. For graph E: I did not move for 2 seconds, then moved at 0.5 m/s for 2.5 seconds away
from the sensor then stopped moving for 3 seconds. I then walked towards the sensor
at -0.5m/s for 2.5 seconds and stopped moving for 2 seconds. I then walked towards
the sensor at -0.5m/s for 2 seconds and stayed still for the duration of the collection.
For graph F: I walked 0.5m away slowly for 4 seconds then paused for 1 second. I
walked towards the sensor and paused for 3 seconds, walked away from the sensor and
stayed still.
5.8. When the velocity vs. time graph is equal to zero, the slope is zero. The subject is
neither accelerating or decelerating.
5.9. When the velocity vs. time graph is not zero acceleration or deceleration is occurring.
6. Extensions
For the extensions we created a graph-matching challenge for our partner to do. We
opened the file “01a graph matching” and chose “draw prediction” from the analyze
menu. I used my mouse to draw a new target graph and challenger my partner to walk
to match my sketch. My challenge is the graph listed below.

7. My lab partner did the same thing and challenged me to match a graph that she drew, the
results are depicted in the graph below.
8. We completed more challenges using a velocity vs time challenges as well in the same
manner as above (for some reason we couldn’t get the graph to be labeled as velocity vs
time but that was what is shown). Below is my challenge shown in the graph, followed by
sonia’s challenge.
My Challenge (velocity vs. time):

## Sonia’s challenge (velocity vs. time):

9. Conclusion
The purpose of this lab is to help us understand the concepts of kinematics. We learned how to
interpret graphs of distance vs. time as well as velocity vs. time. Through the graphs we were
able to tell what direction the subject was going, how far they were moving, their velocity, and if
he or she was speeding up (accelerating) or slowing down (decelerating). We were able to track
and record one’s motion when walking across the room through the use of a motion detector
hooked up to a graphing program (Logger Pro) on the computer. The sensor on the Vernier
Motion Detector used a high frequency sound pulse and the speed of sound to figure out the
distance to the subject. Additionally, in this lab we learned the significance of graph analysis and
how the distance versus time and velocity versus time interpret to real life. Through this lab I
discovered how difficult it is to match the graph’s movement due to all of the different variables
in the room such as someone standing in the background while you are trying to collect data, the
subject being too tall for the sensor (having to hold a notebook over your thighs), faulty
measurements, inconsistent steps or movement patterns, etc. A few of the graphs weren't as
precise as the others, but it still presented the same information. The velocity graphs were
harder to do than the position graphs, because they were very shaky. Our position graphs only
took a couple tries to get the timing right. We could've been more precise, but the graphs still
showed the same data.