Special Lab Report

DISTANCE VS. TIME OF AN

OBJECT ROLLING DOWN IN AN
INCLINED PLANE

By Kara Blevins
SCI 141  03/04/2020

Dr. Ortega
Abstract

In this experiment the relationship between distance and time of a car rolling down in an inclined

plane was determined. The graph of distance and time did not show a linear tendency due to lack

of data. This indicated that the relation between distance (d) and squared time (t 2) was directly

proportional as well as linear. The relation that correlates these variables is d=0.5209t 2-0.0192,

where the units of the slope (0.5209) and the y-intercept (-0.0192) were m and s2, respectfully.

1 2
Comparing the experimental equation with the theoretical equation , ie d= at the experimental
2

acceleration of the car (aexperimental) was found to be 1.042 m/s^2. A percentage of error of

m
3% was found was calculated comparing the experimental to the theoretical (1.068) values of
s2

a.

Introduction

The problem being addressed in the Distance Vs. Time of an object rolling down an inclined

plane is whether or not it agrees with Aristotle’s theory of motion (constant velocity) or Galileo’s

theory of motion (constant acceleration). The equations of motion mathematically describe the

relationships between different variables like velocity, acceleration, distance, and time. In our

practical life this is useful when trying to figure out the average speed for driving on trips within

a certain timeframe. Being able to calculate something like this makes our everyday lives easier.

Overall, “They can be used to determine how long it will take to go from one place to another;

how fast a car was going when it hit a tree; how long it will take a falling object to hit the
ground; how fast you will be going when you jump off the top of a building; and essentially any

question relating to the motion of one or more objects” (eNotes Editorial,2011).

Theory

Galileo’s model included objects accelerate at the same rate regardless of their mass

(a=constant). With his model the mass of the object is not important. He believed distance was

at 2
directly proportional to time squared, d= He also believed heavy and light objects fall
2

together in free fall. On the other hand, Aristotle believed heavy and light objects fall at different

rates. Heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects and each at a constant speed. This was

because he did not account for air resistance. He claimed acceleration was equal to zero and that

velocity was constant and that distance was directly related to time. There was absolutely no

account from Aristotle about any gravity that might effect these objects.

Hypothesis

The motion of the car can be best described by Galileo’s theory of motion which is constant

acceleration. Galileo’s theory will most likely match up closer for this experiment because the

Hall Cart’s speed will change which lines up with acceleration more than velocity. The rate of

speed of the Hall Cart is likely to increase as the distance increases due to the inclined plane.

Therefore this would not allow Aristotle’s idea of constant velocity (no change in speed) to be

applied to this experiment.

List of variables

The control variables for this experiment included: friction, air resistance, height or angle of the

plane, and the cars mass. These variables did not change. The manipulate variable was the

distance because it was changed purposely. The response variable was the change in time.

Objectives

The objective was to find the relationship between distance and time of an object rolling down an

inclined plane. As well as compare Aristotle Vs. Galileo.

Materials

Materials used in the experiment included: A Hall Cart, smooth wooden board (about a meter

long), several smaller blocks, a stopwatch (has to measure accurately to 0.01 seconds), a meter

stick, and a block of foam.

Setting up the experiment required taking the smooth wooden board and propping the end of the

board up onto the smaller blocks to create an incline. Next, the height was changed a few times

to make sure the incline wasn’t too high or low. After that, a block of foam was placed at the end

of the incline to stop the car at the end. One lab partner recorded data, one used the stopwatch,

one sent the car down the incline and one stayed at the end to catch the car.

Procedure

Steps listed below:

 1. The distance was converted from centimeters to meters. The distance started from from

10.0 cm up to 100.0 cm counted by tens.

2. The meterstick was used to measure the respective distance (for example 0.10 meters)

from the bottom of the incline.

3. The Hall Cart was placed at the respective distance and the stop watch was ready at

hand.

4. Hall Cart was released and the stop watch started at the same time.

5. As the Hall Cart hit the bottom of the incline was stop watch was stopped.

6. This was repeated 3 times for each distance.

7. The times of each distance were averaged.

8. Data was then graphed into excel. 1st graph (average time and distance) 2nd graph

(average time squared and distance).

Experiential Data

Distance Versus Time of an Inclined Plane

Distanc Distance Time (t 1) Time (t 2) Time (t 3) Average

e (m) (s) (s) (s) Time

(cm) (t) (s)

10.0 0.10 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.46
20.0 0.20 0.75 0.84 0.72 0.77
30.0 0.30 0.84 0.69 0.96 0.83
40.0 0.40 0.75 0.93 0.94 0.87
50.0 0.50 1.16 0.90 0.85 0.97
60.0 0.60 1.00 1.06 0.97 1.01
70.0 0.70 1.22 1.13 1.09 1.15
80.0 0.80 1.22 1.38 1.40 1.33
90.0 0.90 1.22 1.38 1.28 1.29
100.0 1.0 1.31 1.57 1.32 1.4
Sample of Calculation

*Converting the units for distance from cm to m. 10.0 cm divided by 100 leads us to 0.10 m.

10.0
=0.10(Repeated for all distance measurements).
100

*Averaging the time of each distance (s). Add t 1, t 2, and t 3 together for each distance and divide

by 3.

0.44s+0.44s+0.50s=1.38s

1.38 s
=0.46 s
3

*Square the time.

*Calculating experimental acceleration (aexperimental) of the car from the slope in the graph d

vs. t 2
 1 m
a=0.5209 2 ×2
2 s

m
a c=1.042
s2

*Calculating the percentage of error. Using the equation below we will use the theoretical

a
acceleration value (was found from sensors) which is theoretical=1.068
m
s2

%Error= |a experimental−atheoretical
a theoretical |×100
m m

% Error=
| 1.042
s 2
−1.068 2

1.042 2
m
s
s
x 100
|
% Error= 3%

Discussion of the Results

Conclusions

The relationship between distance and time squared is a direct proportion. The experimental

equation that shows this relation was d=0.5209t 2-0.0192, showing the experimental acceleration
 m
of the car is ac=1.042 A percentage of error of 3% was found, when comparing the
s2

experimental and theoretical values of a. The likely source of error could be due to delayed

reactions when using the stopwatch. Showing to be more like Galileo’s Theory of motion rather

than Aristotle’s.

References

"What is the usefulness of equation of motion in our practical life" eNotes Editorial, 2 July 2011,

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-usefulness-equation-motion-our-practical-life-

265904. Accessed 28 Mar. 2020.