Gavin Krebs

APP1
Mr. Yack
1/6/20
Conservation of Momentum Lab
Purpose: The purpose of this lab was to confirm that conservation of momentum can be proven
through an inelastic or elastic collision.
Materials:
- Two low-friction wheeled carts with magnetic inserts.
- A track that is compliant with the carts.
- Two Vernier motion sensors
- Premeasured/labelled set of masses.
- An electronic scale
- A level/phone (not mandatory to complete this lab as it simply helps to ensure that the
track is level)

Procedure:
1. Gather all materials listed above.
2. Take the ramp and set it up so that it is level. If the ramp is tilted, the results may be
hindered. Take the Vernier motion sensors and place them at the two ends of the track so
that they face each other. Each motion sensor will represent the different velocities of the
two carts in which they are going to be sensing.
3. Measure the masses of the two carts that will be used in this trial. Make sure to vary the
mass of one of the two carts throughout the trials.
4. Take the two carts and place them on the track. Make sure that they have magnets
attached to the front bumper of each so that the carts repel each other using the
electromagnetic force provided by these magnets. This will allow for an elastic collision
to occur.
5. Connect a computer with Logger Pro software to the motion sensors on the opposing
ends of the track.
6. Set the cart with that has no mass added to it (a.k.a. cart two) near the center of the track
(front bumper with magnets aligned with the 50cm marker). Take the other cart (the one
that will have varying masses over the different tests) and place it near one of the motion
detectors. Make sure that the magnetic attachments of the two different carts are facing
each other so that they repel each other whenever they come close.
7. When ready, apply a force with your hand to cart one so that it is set into motion
travelling away from the sensor closest to it towards cart two which is at rest in the
 middle of the track. Make sure to start the data recording function of the sensors
whenever cart two is set into motion.
8. Collect cart one’s initial and final velocity (after it set the other cart into motion) in
addition to the cart’s acceleration when it transfers all/some of its momentum to cart two.

Data:
Trial 1: Trial 2:
Mass Initial Final Acceleration Mass Initial Final Acceleration
(kg): Velocity Velocity (m/s/s): (kg): Velocit Velocit (m/s):
(m/s): (m/s): y (m/s): y (m/s):

Test 1: Cart 1 0.2654 0.572 0 -3.08 0.2654 0.331 0 -1.10

Cart 2 0.2645 0 0.577 3.22 0.2645 0 0.311 1.13
Test 2: Cart 1 0.3899 0.547 0.124 -2.51 0.3899 0.417 0.109 -1.11
Cart 2 0.2645 0 0.664 3.42 0.2645 0 0.555 2.24
Test 3: Cart 1 0.5149 0.642 0.222 -1.84 0.5149 0.471 0.193 -1.75
Cart 2 0.2645 0 0.908 4.94 0.2645 0 0.637 3.35

Conclusion and Analysis:

For this lab, the above data values were gathered from an elastic collision between two carts
on a low-friction track. For each test, the procedure of setting the carts into motion and then
recording was repeated twice. The velocity values varied over the different tests as the students
were not capable of consistently ensuring that the initial velocities remained constant over the
different trials of each test. Therefore, this could be a potential source of error as it makes it
rather difficult to compare data values from the same test side-by-side as their velocities vary.
The data above confirms the conservation of momentum as the momentum found from the initial
momentum of cart two is very is close to the total momentum of cart one and cart two after the
interaction/transfer of momentum takes place between the two carts. The reason why the
acceleration for each trial was calculate was to 1. Observe how mass affects this value, and 2. To
compare the impulses of the two different trials for each test. The data proved to be rather
surprisingly consistent as the numbers being dealt with were very small and could not used to
make the broad statement that the conservation of mass can be proven with this lab. Simply, the
data collected requires an extremely high level of accuracy, which unfortunately, was failed to
have been practiced in this lab as rather few trials were completed, and such small numbers were
dealt with. For test 1, the initial momentum was only off by about 3.4% (on average) from the
final momentum. Unfortunately, this percentage increased as mass increased. For test 2, the
initial momentum was found to be about 10% less than the final momentum. This means that the
center of mass gained momentum as the carts interacted with each other and transferred
momentum. This is rather concerning as it could imply that an outside force (maybe gravity
accelerating the cart down the slightly inclined ramp) could have acted on the two carts and
added momentum to the system. For test 3, the initial momentum averaged being 8.9% less than
the final momentum. This demonstrates that the claim that was made regarding test 2 and how
the ramp may have been slightly inclined could potentially be true as momentum was found to
have been gained. In conclusion, because such a small “sample size” of data was collected, it is
rather unreasonable to make the blanket statement that this lab proves the conservation of
momentum to be true as not enough data were collected. Even though the data collected was
only off* by about 7.6% on average, not enough trials were completed as an insufficiency of
motion detectors made it difficult to gather a rather large grouping of data. To improve this lab,
the students would want to most certainly add multiple more trials and tests to help mitigate error
as the students simply failed in doing so (extensively) in this lab.

off* ;“off” as in referring to how the data simply cannot entirely prove or disprove the
conservation of momentum as the sample size was too small