Report for Experiment #7

Title of the Experiment Work and Energy on an Air Track

Your Name

Lab Partner:

TA:

Experiment Date

Abstract

This experiment, called „work and energy on an air track‟ is performed in order to test the work energy theorem. An
air track was necessary and a glider was put on top of it. The air track put gave air which acted upon the glider and
made the air track frictionless. The air track was used to find the force of gravity acting on an object in two different
investigations. By the end of the experiment it was determine that every time the glider bounced back, some kinetic
energy was lost, and so all the forces doing work equate to this. In the first investigation we got a value of gravity of
which was quite near to the theoretical value of gravity. It had a percent difference of
6.5%, investigation but was low enough to verify the work energy theorem. For the second investigation we got a
value of gravity of . The percent difference in this value was only 7.5%, which is very
low enough for work energy theorem could be verified.
Introduction
In this experiment, we explored the motion of a moving object in a novel way. The electronic interface we used is
called Ultrasonic Measurement System, and the sensor we used is called Ultrasonic Measurement System (UMS).
The UMS essentially automates the time-consuming and repetitive measuring tasks that would otherwise be done by
hand, making them much quicker and more precise. This system can calculate an object's location 10 to 50 times per
second while keeping time and documenting the data in a file that shows position vs. time. We use the fact that
velocity squared is directly proportional to location for constant linear acceleration in this experiment. The aim of
this experiment was to see how work and resources are affected when there is as little pressure as possible. We used
an air track to serve as a non-frictional surface in this experiment, which decreased friction. We took measurements
in the first investigation when the air track was inclined but the glider had no additional mass attached to it. After
taking all of the required measurements, we measured the „g' value of gravity, which also showed how frictionless
the investigation was. We introduced a weight to the glider in the second investigation, but the air track remained in
the same place. The g stands for the same thing as in investigation, except this time the extra weight helps the glider
overcome air resistance.

Investigation 1

In this experiment, the first step was to switch on the air supply so that the glider could fly about freely. It took a
while because the air didn't work at first. If it was up and going, it was important not to turn the air pressure up too
high, as the holes would act as jets, producing a frictional force that would hinder the glider's ability to travel. We
then leveled the air track to ensure that the glider remained perfectly still, then measured the height of the first step
of the block we were given and placed it under the machine's leg. We were all set and ready to begin measuring at
this point. We switched on the computer and typed PASCO capstone into the search bar. We selected the table and
graph template because it would allow us to record our time and position measurements. The amounts were then
selected by choosing select measurements, and one column in the table was changed to position (m) and the other to
time (s). We set the y axis and x axis in the same way, with the y axis representing position and the x axis
representing time. By clicking on hardware setup and then selecting properties, we were able to ensure that the
motion sensor's default sample rate was set to 20Hz.

We checked that the gold-colored transducer face was parallel to the reflector, then tilted the transducer back 5
degrees so that it pointed slightly above the air track's level. By sliding the glider until it touched the motion sensors,
we double-checked that everything was in working order. We were now ready to start collecting data. This was
accomplished by sliding the glider down the track until the reflector was about 20cm away from the motion sensor.
We released the glider after pressing the record button in the capstone window.

Data was appearing on the graph as the glider moved up and down the air track. We clicked stop after the glider
bounced a few times and examined the data in the graph. The data was appropriate because the graph was smooth,
with no flat spots or irregular jumps. We highlighted the data in the location column and double-checked that the
calculations were accurate by pressing the button that increased the number of digits shown. The data had to be
transferred to Excel, so we highlighted, copied, and pasted each column from the table into our spreadsheets. We
then switched off the radio and started analyzing the results.

1.6

1.4

1.2
Position (m)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Time (s)

Figure 1.1. Position versus time graph showing the motion of the glider.

We first plotted position vs. time for all the data. We did this by copying and pasting the data between two
consecutive collisions of the glider with the end of the track. Then, we made two new columns to the right of the
new columns for time and position, the first one with velocity and the second one with velocity squared. We
calculated those values by making use of the excel math features, in which we inputted the given equations for
velocity.

Time Position Velocity(m/s)

√ ( )
(s) (m)
( ) √

2.95 1.319 -0.7 0.49 0.040 1.3015 0.001414214

3 1.284 -0.72 0.5184 0.041 1.266 0.001414214
3.05 1.248 -0.68 0.4624 0.038 1.231 0.001414214
3.1 1.214 -0.66 0.4356 0.037 1.1975 0.001414214
3.15 1.181 -0.66 0.4356 0.037 1.1645 0.001414214
3.2 1.148 -0.62 0.3844 0.035 1.1325 0.001414214
3.25 1.117 -0.68 0.4624 0.038 1.1 0.001414214
3.3 1.083 -0.6 0.36 0.034 1.068 0.001414214
3.35 1.053 -0.58 0.3364 0.033 1.0385 0.001414214
3.4 1.024 -0.58 0.3364 0.033 1.0095 0.001414214
3.45 0.995 -0.56 0.3136 0.032 0.981 0.001414214
3.5 0.967 -0.54 0.2916 0.031 0.9535 0.001414214
3.55 0.94 -0.52 0.2704 0.029 0.927 0.001414214
3.6 0.914 -0.5 0.25 0.028 0.9015 0.001414214
3.65 0.889 -0.5 0.25 0.028 0.8765 0.001414214
3.7 0.864 -0.48 0.2304 0.027 0.852 0.001414214
3.75 0.84 -0.46 0.2116 0.026 0.8285 0.001414214
3.8 0.817 -0.44 0.1936 0.025 0.806 0.001414214
3.85 0.795 -0.44 0.1936 0.025 0.784 0.001414214
3.9 0.773 -0.4 0.16 0.023 0.763 0.001414214
3.95 0.753 -0.4 0.16 0.023 0.743 0.001414214
4 0.733 -0.38 0.1444 0.021 0.7235 0.001414214
4.05 0.714 -0.36 0.1296 0.020 0.705 0.001414214
4.1 0.696 -0.34 0.1156 0.019 0.6875 0.001414214
4.15 0.679 -0.34 0.1156 0.019 0.6705 0.001414214
4.2 0.662 -0.32 0.1024 0.018 0.654 0.001414214
4.25 0.646 -0.3 0.09 0.017 0.6385 0.001414214
4.3 0.631 -0.28 0.0784 0.016 0.624 0.001414214
4.35 0.617 -0.26 0.0676 0.015 0.6105 0.001414214
4.4 0.604 -0.26 0.0676 0.015 0.5975 0.001414214
4.45 0.591 -0.24 0.0576 0.014 0.585 0.001414214
4.5 0.579 -0.22 0.0484 0.012 0.5735 0.001414214
4.55 0.568 -0.2 0.04 0.011 0.563 0.001414214
4.6 0.558 -0.18 0.0324 0.010 0.5535 0.001414214
4.65 0.549 -0.18 0.0324 0.010 0.5445 0.001414214
4.7 0.54 -0.16 0.0256 0.009 0.536 0.001414214
4.75 0.532 -0.16 0.0256 0.009 0.528 0.001414214
4.8 0.524 -0.12 0.0144 0.007 0.521 0.001414214
4.85 0.518 -0.12 0.0144 0.007 0.515 0.001414214
4.9 0.512 -0.08 0.0064 0.005 0.51 0.001414214
4.95 0.508 -0.08 0.0064 0.005 0.506 0.001414214
5 0.504 -0.08 0.0064 0.005 0.502 0.001414214
5.05 0.5 -0.04 0.0016 0.002 0.499 0.001414214
5.1 0.498 -0.04 0.0016 0.002 0.497 0.001414214
5.15 0.496 -0.02 0.0004 0.001 0.4955 0.001414214
5.2 0.495 0 0 0.000 0.495 0.001414214
5.25 0.495 0.02 0.0004 0.001 0.4955 0.001414214
5.3 0.496 0.02 0.0004 0.001 0.4965 0.001414214
5.35 0.497 0.06 0.0036 0.003 0.4985 0.001414214
5.4 0.5 0.06 0.0036 0.003 0.5015 0.001414214
5.45 0.503 0.08 0.0064 0.005 0.505 0.001414214
5.5 0.507 0.08 0.0064 0.005 0.509 0.001414214
5.55 0.511 0.12 0.0144 0.007 0.514 0.001414214
5.6 0.517 0.12 0.0144 0.007 0.52 0.001414214
5.65 0.523 0.14 0.0196 0.008 0.5265 0.001414214
5.7 0.53 0.16 0.0256 0.009 0.534 0.001414214
5.75 0.538 0.16 0.0256 0.009 0.542 0.001414214
5.8 0.546 0.2 0.04 0.011 0.551 0.001414214
5.85 0.556 0.2 0.04 0.011 0.561 0.001414214
5.9 0.566 0.2 0.04 0.011 0.571 0.001414214
5.95 0.576 0.22 0.0484 0.012 0.5815 0.001414214
6 0.587 0.26 0.0676 0.015 0.5935 0.001414214
6.05 0.6 0.26 0.0676 0.015 0.6065 0.001414214
6.1 0.613 0.26 0.0676 0.015 0.6195 0.001414214
6.15 0.626 0.28 0.0784 0.016 0.633 0.001414214
6.2 0.64 0.3 0.09 0.017 0.6475 0.001414214
6.25 0.655 0.3 0.09 0.017 0.6625 0.001414214
6.3 0.67 0.32 0.1024 0.018 0.678 0.001414214
6.35 0.686 0.34 0.1156 0.019 0.6945 0.001414214
6.4 0.703 0.34 0.1156 0.019 0.7115 0.001414214
6.45 0.72 0.36 0.1296 0.020 0.729 0.001414214
6.5 0.738 0.38 0.1444 0.021 0.7475 0.001414214
6.55 0.757 0.38 0.1444 0.021 0.7665 0.001414214
6.6 0.776 0.38 0.1444 0.021 0.7855 0.001414214
6.65 0.795 0.4 0.16 0.023 0.805 0.001414214
6.7 0.815 0.42 0.1764 0.024 0.8255 0.001414214
6.75 0.836 0.42 0.1764 0.024 0.8465 0.001414214
6.8 0.857 0.44 0.1936 0.025 0.868 0.001414214
6.85 0.879 0.44 0.1936 0.025 0.89 0.001414214
6.9 0.901 0.46 0.2116 0.026 0.9125 0.001414214
6.95 0.924 0.48 0.2304 0.027 0.936 0.001414214
7 0.948 0.48 0.2304 0.027 0.96 0.001414214
7.05 0.972 0.5 0.25 0.028 0.9845 0.001414214
7.1 0.997 0.5 0.25 0.028 1.0095 0.001414214
7.15 1.022 0.52 0.2704 0.029 1.035 0.001414214
7.2 1.048 0.54 0.2916 0.031 1.0615 0.001414214
7.25 1.075 0.52 0.2704 0.029 1.088 0.001414214
7.3 1.101 0.62 0.3844 0.035 1.1165 0.001414214
7.35 1.132 0.5 0.25 0.028 1.1445 0.001414214
7.4 1.157 0.62 0.3844 0.035 1.1725 0.001414214
7.45 1.188 0.58 0.3364 0.033 1.2025 0.001414214
7.5 1.217 0.6 0.36 0.034 1.232 0.001414214

Table 1.1. The above table indicates time, position, velocity, velocity square, average position and the errors
in average position and velocity square.

The table above demonstrated the data gathered from the curve between the first two peaks of the total movement
data shown in figure 1.1. The first two columns indicates the time and position of the glider measured by the UMS
Then, I calculated the glider's velocity between two points using the formula:

From Table 1.1, it can be clearly seen that the velocity values were initial1y negative values, and later at some point
changed to positive. This is because the negative sign means that the distance between the glider and the motion
sensor when the glider moving towards the motion sensor is decreasing. In contrast, when the glider moves away
from the sensor, the distance in between will increase, thus the sign will be positive. Nevertheless, I calculated the
squared velocity just by squaring each value. However, the error in squared velocity was calculated via the
following formula:

√ ( )

Where as m. I have considered in this investigation that the velocity between two points might be
correlated nearly at the average position, which was calculated as:

Afterwards, there was to find the error in average position,

√
 v^2 vs. Average Position
0.6

0.5 y = 0.6486x - 0.3232

R² = 0.9923
0.4 y = 0.4912x - 0.2361
R² = 0.9731
v^2 (m/s^2)

Motion away from sensor

0.3

0.2 Motion towards sensor

0.1 Linear (Motion away from

sensor)
0 Linear (Motion towards
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 sensor)
-0.1
Average Postion (m)

Figure 1.2 - Plot displays the Velocity squared versus the Average position for the glider, with error bars. The
blue series demonstrated the glider moving away from motion sensor, and the red series demonstrated the glider
moving towards the sensor.

The figure above demonstrates the relationship between squared velocity and average position, trend lines, and equations of the
trend lines. The blue plots indicate the series of the glider moving away from sensor that were connected via linear trend line. The
reason why the two slopes differ is because the glider was set on an inclined surface. So, when the glider moves upward toward
the motion sensor, it will challenge the force of gravity and friction. However, when the glider moves downward away from the
sensor, the friction force will be lesser. Thus, acceleration of going upward is higher than the acceleration of going downward,
since the acceleration is determined from the slope.

From that formula, we can generate the general form of as:

We have

The equation for the work-energy theorem can be expressed using the form

on the incline plane, to the

Form where

Rearranging the equation, g, the acceleration due to gravity, was found to be

This is critical to the experiment because as was previously mentioned, the incline causes gravity to have an effect
on the speed of the glider. The angle θ was calculated by using the values for d and h measured earlier in the
investigation:

,
Getting 1.78 degrees for θ, the angle of the incline which what was used in the equation. B is the slope of the line of
best fit on the graph, which was calculated for each branch of the graph using the IPL best fit .We calcuated to get 2
slope values, in addition to errors for the slope:

This was calculated using LINEST function in excel.

IPL slope toward bottom of incline:

IPL slope away from bottom of incline:

The two experimental values for were calculated for each line:

Toward the bottom of the incline:

Away from the bottom of the incline:

The averages of these 2 calculated values for g was found using the equation

The uncertainty value for g was calculated based on the equation for the average g, to obtain

√( )

Solving this equation requires the values of δg , which was calculated for both series in the graph
using the propagation of

( )
Which comes out to be

√( ) ( )

The values for B, δB , and g have already been established for each direction, so using the definition of ,

the error will be

√( ) ( )

making the uncertainty of average g equal to the following

√( ) ( )

√( ) ( )

√( ) ( )

Toward the bottom of the incline :

√( ) ( )

Away from the bottom of the incline :

√( ) ( )

Hence

√ ( )

√( ) ( )

The calculated value of g becomes

The actual value for g, , does not fall into the range of uncertainty, because

, which is still smaller than 9.81 meaning that the work-energy theorem was not Verified exactly. But the

curve is a straight line, and the experimentally calculated is deviated from the theoretical value. But the difference is
not too large so we can say that it is approximately verified.

The percent error of this experimentally determined average value came out to be

| |

The work-energy theorem is not exactly verified by this experiment because of the relatively percent error value,
and the experimental g does not fall into the uncertainty range. But the percentage is not very large so we can say
that it is in the reasonable limit. The velocity squared vs. position plot showed lines of best fit that had
corresponding slopes that caused the experimental values of g to be calculated. The g for the glider moving away
from the bottom of the incline, , was much closer to 9.81 , but still does not fall into
the uncertain range. This could be attributed to experimental error possibly due to air resistance or an uneven draft in
the room.

Investigation 2
In this investigation we basically did the same thing as investigation 1 but we attached a weight moving vertically to
the glider moving horizontally. Before setting up the experiment, we measured and recorded the mass of the glider
and of the hanging lead weight. The mass of the glider was 376.6 gram and the hanging lead weight was 27.7 gram.
We did the same thing we did in investigation one, by releasing the glider, recording the position and time with
capstone and it was all setup the same, but there was a weight attached to the glider this time. Also, this time the
glider had to be released from 40cm instead of 20cm, like in investigation 1.

Time Position Velocity(m/s)

√ ( )
(s) (m)
( )
√
2.05 1.286 0.026 0.000676 0.001 1.312 0.00141421
2.1 1.338 0.0005 2.5E-07 0.000 1.3385 0.00141421
2.15 1.339 -0.0215 0.00046225 0.001 1.3175 0.00141421
2.2 1.296 -0.021 0.000441 0.001 1.275 0.00141421
2.25 1.254 -0.0205 0.00042025 0.001 1.2335 0.00141421
2.3 1.213 -0.019 0.000361 0.001 1.194 0.00141421
2.35 1.175 -0.018 0.000324 0.001 1.157 0.00141421
2.4 1.139 -0.017 0.000289 0.001 1.122 0.00141421
2.45 1.105 -0.016 0.000256 0.001 1.089 0.00141421
2.5 1.073 -0.016 0.000256 0.001 1.057 0.00141421
2.55 1.041 -0.0135 0.00018225 0.001 1.0275 0.00141421
2.6 1.014 -0.013 0.000169 0.001 1.001 0.00141421
2.65 0.988 -0.0115 0.00013225 0.001 0.9765 0.00141421
2.7 0.965 -0.011 0.000121 0.001 0.954 0.00141421
2.75 0.943 -0.0095 9.025E-05 0.001 0.9335 0.00141421
2.8 0.924 -0.009 8.1E-05 0.001 0.915 0.00141421
2.85 0.906 -0.008 6.4E-05 0.000 0.898 0.00141421
2.9 0.89 -0.0065 4.225E-05 0.000 0.8835 0.00141421
2.95 0.877 -0.006 3.6E-05 0.000 0.871 0.00141421
3 0.865 -0.005 0.000025 0.000 0.86 0.00141421
3.05 0.855 -0.004 0.000016 0.000 0.851 0.00141421
3.1 0.847 -0.003 9E-06 0.000 0.844 0.00141421
3.15 0.841 -0.002 4E-06 0.000 0.839 0.00141421
3.2 0.837 -0.001 0.000001 0.000 0.836 0.00141421
3.25 0.835 -0.0005 0.00000025 0.000 0.8345 0.00141421
3.3 0.834 0.0005 0.00000025 0.000 0.8345 0.00141421
3.35 0.835 0.001 0.000001 0.000 0.836 0.00141421
3.4 0.837 0.0025 6.25E-06 0.000 0.8395 0.00141421
3.45 0.842 0.0025 6.25E-06 0.000 0.8445 0.00141421
3.5 0.847 0.0035 0.00001225 0.000 0.8505 0.00141421
3.55 0.854 0.0045 0.00002025 0.000 0.8585 0.00141421
3.6 0.863 0.005 0.000025 0.000 0.868 0.00141421
3.65 0.873 0.0055 3.025E-05 0.000 0.8785 0.00141421
3.7 0.884 0.0065 4.225E-05 0.000 0.8905 0.00141421
3.75 0.897 0.0075 5.625E-05 0.000 0.9045 0.00141421
3.8 0.912 0.008 6.4E-05 0.000 0.92 0.00141421
3.85 0.928 0.0085 7.225E-05 0.000 0.9365 0.00141421
3.9 0.945 0.009 8.1E-05 0.001 0.954 0.00141421
3.95 0.963 0.01 0.0001 0.001 0.973 0.00141421
4 0.983 0.011 0.000121 0.001 0.994 0.00141421
4.05 1.005 0.011 0.000121 0.001 1.016 0.00141421
4.1 1.027 0.013 0.000169 0.001 1.04 0.00141421
4.15 1.053 0.013 0.000169 0.001 1.066 0.00141421
4.2 1.079 0.0135 0.00018225 0.001 1.0925 0.00141421
4.25 1.106 0.014 0.000196 0.001 1.12 0.00141421
4.3 1.134 0.0145 0.00021025 0.001 1.1485 0.00141421
4.35 1.163 0.016 0.000256 0.001 1.179 0.00141421
4.4 1.195 0.016 0.000256 0.001 1.211 0.00141421
4.45 1.227 0.017 0.000289 0.001 1.244 0.00141421
4.5 1.261 0.0175 0.00030625 0.001 1.2785 0.00141421
4.55 1.296 0.018 0.000324 0.001 1.314 0.00141421

Figure 2.1. The above table indicates time, position, velocity, velocity square, average position and the errors in
average position and velocity square.

The table above demonstrated the data gathered from the curve between the first two peaks of the total movement
data shown in figure 2.1. The first two columns indicates the time and position of the glider measured by the UMS
Then, I calculated the glider's velocity between two points using the formula:

From Table 2.1, it can be clearly seen that the velocity values were initial1y negative values, and later at some point
changed to positive. This is because the negative sign means that the distance
between the glider and the motion sensor when the glider moving towards the motion sensor is decreasing. In
contrast, when the glider moves away from the sensor, the distance in between will increase, thus the sign will be
positive. Nevertheless, I calculated the squared velocity just by squaring each value. However, the error in squared
velocity was calculated via the following formula:

√ ( )

Where as m. I have considered in this investigation that the velocity between two points might be
correlated nearly at the average position, which was calculated as:

Afterwards, there was to find the error in average position,

√
 v^2 vs. Average Postion
0.0006

0.0005 y = 1.3808x - 1.1296

R² = 0.6575
0.0004
v^2 (m/s^2)

y = 1.1037x - 0.916
0.0003
R² = 0.9953

0.0002

0.0001

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
-0.0001
Average Position (m)

Motion away from sensor Motion towards sensor

Linear (Motion away from sensor) Linear (Motion towards sensor)

Figure 1.2 - Plot displays the Velocity squared versus the Average position for the glider. The blue series
demonstrated the glider moving away from motion sensor, and the red series demonstrated the glider moving
towards the sensor.

The figure above demonstrates the relationship between squared velocity and average position, trend lines, and
equations of the trend lines. The blue plots indicate the series of the glider moving away from sensor that were
connected via linear trend line. The equation for the work-energy theorem can be expressed using the form

The general form

Comparing we have

Rearranging the equation, g, the acceleration due to gravity, was found to be

This was calculated using LINEST function in excel.
IPL slope away from sensor:

IPL slope toward sensor:

The mass of the glider was 376.6 gram and the hanging lead weight was 27.7 gram.
The two experimental values for were calculated for each line:
Away from sensor:

Toward sensor

The averages of these 2 calculated values for g was found using the equation

The uncertainty value for g was calculated based on the equation for the average g, to obtain

√( )

Solving this equation requires the values of δg , which was calculated for both series in the graph.
First we calculate δg for both cases

This comes out to be

√( ) ( ) ( )

√
The values for B, δB, have already been established for each direction, so using the definition of making the
uncertainty
√
We have

√( ) ( ) ( )
Away from the sensor

√( ) ( ) ( )

√( ) ( ) ( )

Towards the sensor

√( ) ( ) ( )

√( ) ( ) ( )

Hence

√ ( )

2.30068224

The calculated value of g becomes

The actual value for g, , fall into the range of uncertainty, because .

It is slightly larger than the actual value. We can say from this small difference that work-energy theorem was
verified. But the curve is a straight line, and the experimentally calculated is not too much deviated from the
theoretical value.
The percent error of this experimentally determined average value came out to be

| |
The work-energy theorem is verified approximately by this experiment because of the relatively percent error value,
and the experimental g does almost into the uncertainty range. But the percentage is not very large so we can say
that it is in the reasonable limit. The velocity squared vs. position plot showed lines of best fit that had
corresponding slopes that caused the experimental values of g to be calculated.

The value for C, the y-intercept in the y= Bx+ C form, was not analyzed during this investigation, however, C
reflects the position of the glider after bouncing back from the end of the track, so it can be used to make sure the
data is consistent at each point, if the slope was within the range of uncertainty.

The divisions in the plot we had for investigation 1 did not have the same slope. This will confuse anyone because
they believe they should have the same slope because gravity's acceleration would not shift even though they were
going uphill; instead of accelerating, they would be decelerating. This was not the case, because the difference in
slopes was due to the fact that every time the glider bounced back, a small amount of energy was wasted, impacting
the slope of the line once plotted.

In the first investigation, we obtained a g value of approximately 9.1 m/s2. This was somewhat lower than the
predicted value of 9.81m/s2. This made sense because there was a lot of air pressure, so the glider took a lot longer
to bounce up and down than it would have taken if there was anything stuck to it to weigh it down. The glider had to
push through the particles in the air with its own weight and little support, which explains the large gap. Based on
the physics of the experiment, this made sense.

Since our value of g was within a reasonable range of the theoretical value and the percent discrepancy was small,
the work energy theorem was verified. The most significant source of error in this investigation is gravitational
potential energy, which is defined as potential energy=PE=mgh. The following equation, I believe, is the most
significant source of error in this investigation: KE2+PE2+Q = KE1 + PE1. Every time the glider bounced back,
kinetic energy was lost, and some of it was lost at Q(heat energy).

In the second investigation, we obtained an approximate value of g of 9.01 m/s2. We got a total of 7. percent when
we calculated the percent difference. This was similar to the percent difference discovered in the previous
investigation. However, the error estimation gives us a value that is roughly equal to the gravity value of 9.81 m/s 2.
This may be because the glider had a weight added to it in the second investigation, making it possible to break
through the particles in the air, commonly known as air resistance. The glider would fly slower if the weight wasn't
added to it, as it was in investigation 1, so there would be more air pressure against it. The weight helped the glider
break through air resistance faster. For example, If a feather were to be placed on a book and the book were to be
dropped on the ground with the feather on top of it, the book and he feather would drop at the same time because the
book would break through air resistance so the feather would drop at the same time as the book since there is no air
resistance, but if the feather were to be dropped by itself, without the book blocking the air resistance, the feather
would take longer to drop to the ground because it would have to break through all the particles in the air by itself.

Conclusion
From this experiment, we covered the concepts of motion of an object on a frictionless plane (both horizontal and
inclined), which are supported by kinematic equations which gave us graphs expressing the position and velocity of
the object. Using this information, we could deduce the acceleration of the object and its validity when put next to
the acceleration of gravity. This validity determined the verification of the work-energy theorem on the object, since
a constant gravity is required of it. From the first investigation, we attained a percent error between the calculated
and actual gravity of 6 % approximately and the uncertainty value is not make our value of g close to 9.81m/s2. And
from the second investigation, we attained a percent error or 7% approximately and the uncertainty value make our
value of g close to 9.81m/s2. There might numerous factors involved which lead to 6 to 7 percent error in the final
values, such as significant source of error was the pegs. They were maybe not perfectly leveled meant this lack of
precision impacted our data. An improvement to this experiment would be to have an air track that has already been
set up and leveled, as well as no adjustable pegs to assure that the track isn‟t moved slightly during experimentation.
The experiment environment should have no air flow so that the data should not be affected.

Questions

1. As the velocity of the glider increases, does the accuracy of the motion sensor increase of decrease?

Owing to sound waves flowing to and from the object, the precision of the motion can decline as the glider's velocity
increases. That would produce a situation in which sound will chase the glider, and even if the difference in time as
sound hits the glider will be negligible as the glider raises its velocity, the condition will still occur, lowering the
motion sensor’s accuracy.

2. In the configuration of Investigation 1, for the upwards part of motion, how does friction affect the total
energy of the glider? How does it affect the total energy for the downwards part of the motion?

It affects the total energy upwards and downwards where in both scenarios, the force of friction will reduce the total
energy.

3. For the configuration of Investigation 1, draw force diagrams for all the forces on the glider including
friction, for both the case of upwards and downwards motion.
 4. For the configuration of Investigation 2, what is the acceleration of the glider if m'→∞?

( )

As m'→∞ we have

5. For the configuration of Investigation 2, what is the change in potential energy from the moment of release
to the moment of collision with the bumper? Considering the kinetic energy of the system just before it
crashes into the bumper, what is the change in total energy of the system? Is the change in energy positive
or negative? Explain whether your

Then, we subtract KEi from KEf :

this answer makes sense because the result we got is negative which is right because before the glider bounces off
the bumper the potential energy is greater than the kinetic energy.

Questions

1. In your first Investigation you have used an equation for error in velocity squared given as

√ ( ). Derive it using error propagation formulae from Appendix A.

We star from equation

( )

The motion is started from an initial point , we have

 √(( ) ) (( ) )

√( ) ( )

( )√ ( )

√ ( ) ( )

From

We can write

We have

√ ( ) ( )

Simplifying we have

√ ( )

√ ( )

2. Suppose that you want to do your second investigation on Mars, where the acceleration of free fall is 2.5
times smaller than on the Earth‟s surface. Calculate the mass you should use in place of with the lab
apparatus to obtain the same plot of position vs. time (i.e. “Martian” data).

We have to get the same weight so

We have

We have
 3. In this experiment, you calculated the average velocity v between adjacent data points and then plotted the
average velocity squared with respect to the average position between those points. Is this an
approximation? Explain.

If we consider third equation of motion we have

( )
The motion is started from an initial point , we have

So when we plot velocity square vs. position its slope gives us acceleration, in our case it was gravitational
acceleration. The average values helps in reducing the error in the results.
4. Power is defined as the rate of doing work, i.e. the work done per unit time. Estimate the maximum power
of the experimental apparatus (in Watts =Joules per second) in your first investigation.
Work done can be calculated from equation

( )

If we divide both sides by time we have

( )