You are on page 1of 20

# Brenton Sonego

## Practical Timeslot: 9.00am 11.00am, Friday 19th April.

M8

CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

## Brenton Sonego, n8276447;

Scott Condon; Brandon Eglington.

CONTENTS
1.0 Experimental Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

1.0 EXPERIMENTAL AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The primary aims of this experiment may be categorised into the four following focus areas: To study the forces between objects that interact with each other, especially in collisions; To examine the consequences of Newtons third law as applied to interaction forces between objects; To formulate the law of conservation of momentum as a theoretical consequence of Newtons third law and the impulse-momentum law; To explore conservation of momentum in one-dimensional collisions. Consequently, thorough and methodical investigation of these focus areas will provide effective familiarisation to the universal notion of the conservation of momentum, a testimonial to the seemingly universal applicability of Newtons third law.

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 NEWTONS THIRD LAW

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; a fact which constitutes Newtons third law of motion. Thus, this indicates that if a body exerts a force F on a second body, this second body exerts a corresponding force -F on the first body. Newton used the third law to derive the conservation of momentum law; however, from a deeper perspective, conservation of momentum is the more fundamental idea (derived from Noethers theorem and Galilean invariance), and holds in cases where Newtons third law appears to fail [1]. Such instances include when force fields and particles carry momentum, and in quantum mechanics [1].

## 2.2 MOMENTUM AND CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM

Momentum is recognised as the quantity of motion of a moving body [2]. Measured as the product of the mass of a body by its velocity, momentum is a conserved quantity, indicating that when there are no external force vectors acting on a closed system, the total linear or angular momentum of the system remains constant. Consequently, this motion conservation is universally accepted as the conservation of momentum, retaining laws within the physical fields of quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, and general relativity [3]. An example this conservation of linear momentum is reflected through the recoil of a rifle, whereby firing a rifle produces a sharp backlash against the shoulder of the firer, corresponding with the momentum of the bullet. Noticeably, as the mass of the rifle is far greater than that of the bullet, the velocity of the backlash is significantly reduced [4].

2.3 IMPULSE

Under every circumstance, a force, applied over a brief or extensive time period, must initially set a system in motion for the system to possess momentum. This perception coincides with Newtons first law, declaring that the motion of an object has the tendency to remain constant, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Similarly, when a system experiences a collision, the change in momentum of the system may be described in terms of the force applied over a certain period of time. Accordingly, this concept of momentum change is identified as the impulse. Likewise with momentum, impulse is a vector quantity, whereby the vector component of impulse is force, whereas the vector component of momentum is velocity. Consequently, the impulse force can be applied to derive the relationship between impulse and the change in momentum.

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

## 2.4 ELASTIC AND INELASTIC COLLISIONS

The conservation of kinetic energy in a collision determines whether the collision is elastic or inelastic. The fundamental criterion for an elastic collision is that the forces between the interacting objects be conservative; then kinetic energy is stored briefly as potential energy, and released again by the time the collision if over [5]. In Contrast to elastic collisions, inelastic collisions are collisions in which the kinetic energy between interacting objects is not conserved, with additional generation of internal heat energy, whilst the momentum of the two objects remains constant. From these two forms of collisions, elastic collisions are the predominant form of collision distinguished in real world scenarios.
2.5 THEORETICAL RELATIONSHIPS

Newtons second law of motion proclaims that a force is the product of the mass by the acceleration of an object. Furthermore, acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity over a specific time interval. Using this information, the following formulae demonstrate how the change in momentum is equal to impulse. , , ( ) ( )

Correspondingly, these calculations have provided alternative means of deriving the relationship between impulse and the change in momentum.

( )

( )

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

( ) ( )

( )

Therefore, we may calculate the change in momentum (impulse) of a body by integrating the area under a force-time curve.

2.6 SYMBOLS

These relationships will be investigated and discussed further throughout this report, whereby the following symbols will be used within calculations. ( ( ) ( ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( )

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

## 3.0 EXPERIMENTAL METHOD

3.1 INVESTIGATION 1: FORCES BETWEEN INTERACTING OBJECTS

This investigation intends to compare the forces exerted by two bodies on each other during collisions. This will be completed by applying varying forces to objects with different momentums and masses, and thus observing the collision outcomes. EQUIPMENT Observations of force interactions, within various collision scenarios, were allowed with use of the following equipment. Computer-based laboratory system; RealTime Physics Mechanics experiment configuration files; Two force probes with rubber stoppers replacing the hooks; Two 5.2N equivalent masses to calibrate the force probes; Two low-friction carts; Masses to place on one of the carts to double and triple its mass; Smooth level ramp or other level surface;
3.1.1 ACTIVITY 1-1: COLLISION INTERACTION FORCES

TESTING PROCEDURE 1. Predictions of the force interactions were made for the following situations: Scenario 1

Scenario 2

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

Scenario 3

2. Force probe A and B was calibrated for compressive and tensile loads (pushes and pulls, respectively) of 5.2N, by balancing the weight on the probe for a compressive load, and hanging the weight from the probe for a tensile load. As loads acting from left to right were deemed negative, the sign of the pushing load on probe A, and the pulling load on probe B, was reversed. 3. The experiment file called Collisions (LO9A1-1) was opened, which displayed two sets of axis. The software in this file was then configured to measure forces applied to each probe at a data collection rate of 4000 points per second. 4. The apparatus was set up as shown in the following diagram.

The hooks were removed from these force probes and replaced with rubber stoppers, of which they were carefully aligned. This alignment ensured accurate readouts from the experimental software when interactions between each force probe occurred. 5. After attaching each force probe to an assigned cart, these carts were securely fastened to the track. Once fastened to the track, these force probes were then zeroed, ensuring the accuracy of the graphical software readouts. 6. The two carts were used to explore the interaction situations mentioned in step 1, and thus comparing the interaction outcomes to the predictions made beforehand. 7. The corresponding graph of each interaction was recorded, where the integration routine was used to determine the impulse exerted by each cart on the other. Brenton Sonego n8276447 M8 Practical ENB130

## 3.1.2 EXTENSION 1-2: MORE COLLISION INTERACTION FORCES

TESTING PROCEDURE 1. Predictions of the force interactions were made for the following situations: Scenario 4

Scenario 5

Scenario 6

2. The testing apparatus from Activity 1-1, of which was still setup, was used to test the predictions made. Before testing each scenario, these force probes were again zeroed, ensuring that the software would produce accurate readouts. 3. Comparisons were made between predictions and testing results. Brenton Sonego n8276447 M8 Practical ENB130

## 3.1.3 ACTIVITY 1-3: OTHER INTERACTION FORCES

1. Predictions of the force interactions was made for the following situation.

These predictions included: - the force interaction before the truck began moving; - the force interaction while the truck was accelerating; - the force interaction after the car and truck were moving at a constant velocity. 2. The experiment file called Other Interactions (LO9A1-3) was opened, which displayed two sets of axis. The software in this file was then configured to measure the forces applied to each probe at a data collection rate of 20 points per second. 3. The testing apparatus from Activity 1-1 was used to test the predictions made. Before testing each scenario, these force probes were again zeroed, ensuring that the software would produce accurate readouts. 4. A 500g mass was added to cart A, and a 250g mass was added to cart B, whereby these carts were held in place, with their rubber stoppers just barely touching, before graphing began. Once the software began graphing, cart A was propelled forward. 5. The corresponding graph, displaying the interaction forces between cart A and B, was sketched, of which a comparison was made between the original predictions made and the outcome of the experiment.
3.2 INVESTIGATION 2: NEWTONS LAWS AND MOMENTUM CONSERVATION

This investigation intended to evaluate the conservation of momentum in an inelastic collision between two carts of unequal mass. EQUIPMENT The following equipment was required to thoroughly and methodically observe this conservation of momentum experiment.

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

Computer-based laboratory system; RealTime Physics Mechanics experiment configuration files; Two force probes with rubber stoppers replacing the hooks; Motion detector; Two low-friction carts; Masses to place on one of the carts to double its mass; Smooth level ramp or other level surface; Clay.
3.2.1 ACTIVITY 2-1: CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IN AN INELASTIC COLLISION

TESTING PROCEDURE 1. The experiment file called Inelastic Collision (LO9A2-1) was opened, which displayed two sets of axis. 2. The apparatus was set up as shown in the following diagram.

The force probed were removed from each cart and replaced with clay, of which allowed carts to stick together after the collision. Cart A had a total mass of 0.5kg, whilst cart B had a total mass of 1.486kg. 3. Once the software had begun graphing, cart A, situated approximately 0.5m from the motion detector, was given a brisk push toward cart B, whereby cart A was released once it had gained momentum. 4. The corresponding graph, displaying the interaction forces and motion between cart A and B, was sketched. This graph was used to determine the initial velocity of cart A before the collision, and the final velocity of cart B just after the collision. 5. Previously determining the velocities of cart A and B directly before and after the collision allowed the calculation of the initial and final total momentum of each cart.

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

10

4.0 RESULTS

Conducting these experiments produced an array of interaction outcomes, of which were all predicted correctly due to the laws and theories regarding collisions and momentum.
4.1 ACTIVITY 1-1: COLLISION INTERACTION FORCES

Table 1 displays the forces exerted on cart A and B, within Scenario 1, throughout the 0.018s duration of the collision. Time (s) 0 2 x 10-3 4 x 10-3 6 x 10-3 8 x 10-3 1 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-2 1.6 x 10-2 1.8 x 10-2 Cart A Force (N) -0.05 -2.00 -29.2 -46.7 -50.4 -41.1 -21.8 -3.15 -2.23 -0.34 Cart B Force (N) -0.09 2.06 30.8 46.3 49.1 38.6 21.3 3.17 1.60 2.09

Table 1
These data points, for Scenario 1, correspond to the following force-time graph, Graph 1.

## Scenario 1; Force vs. Time

60 40 Force Exerted on Cart (N) 20 Cart A 0 0 -20 -40 -60 Time (s) 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 Cart B Poly. (Cart A) Poly. (Cart B)

Graph 1
Brenton Sonego n8276447 M8 Practical ENB130

11

Table 2 displays the forces exerted on cart A and B, within Scenario 2, throughout the 0.022s duration of the collision. Time (s) 0 2 x 10-3 4 x 10-3 6 x 10-3 8 x 10-3 1 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-2 1.6 x 10-2 1.8 x 10-2 2.0 x 10-2 2.2 x 10-2 Cart A Force (N) -0.05 -2.72 -17.3 -27.0 -28.6 -22.5 -11.6 -0.85 -1.48 -0.68 0.12 0.38 Cart B Force (N) -0.11 2.69 19.2 27.2 27.8 21.6 11.4 0.74 0.74 0.54 0.29 0.09

Table 2
These data points, for Scenario 2, correspond to the following force-time graph, Graph 2.

## Scenario 2: Force vs. Time

40 30 Force Exerted on Cart (N) 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 Time (s) 0 0.0020.0040.0060.008 0.01 0.0120.0140.0160.018 0.02 0.022 Cart A Cart B Poly. (Cart A) Poly. (Cart B)

Graph 2

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

12

Table 3 displays the forces exerted on cart A and B, within Scenario 3, throughout the 0.018s duration of the collision. Time (s) 0 2 x 10-3 4 x 10-3 6 x 10-3 8 x 10-3 1 x 10-2 1.2 x 10-2 1.4 x 10-2 1.6 x 10-2 1.8 x 10-2 Cart A Force (N) -0.11 -17.5 -29.0 -32.4 -40.1 -39.3 -30.7 -17.7 -5.16 0.38 Cart B Force (N) -0.09 16.8 27.0 35.2 34.5 29.6 23.7 14.8 4.09 0.23

Table 3
These data points, for Scenario 3, correspond to the following force-time graph, Graph 3.

## Scenario 3: Force vs. Time

40 30 Force Exerted on Carts (N) 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 Time (s) 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 Cart A Cart B Poly. (Cart A) Poly. (Cart B)

Graph 3

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

13

## Cart A (all scenario's): Force vs. Time

0 0 -10 -20 Force (N) Scenario 1 -30 -40 -50 -60 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018

Time (s)

## Cart B (all scenario's): Force vs. Time

60 50 40 Force (N) 30 20 10 0 0 -10 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 Time (s) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

14

## 4.2 ACTIVITY 1-3: OTHER INTERACTION FORCES

Table 4 displays the forces exerted on cart A and B, within Activity 1-3, throughout the 0.8s duration of the collision. Time (s) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 Cart A Force (N) 0.00 -1.06 -1.51 -2.09 -3.09 -3.57 -3.69 -3.44 -2.92 -2.10 -1.71 -0.96 -0.28 0 0 0 0 Cart B Force (N) 0.00 0.76 1.18 1.71 2.63 3.09 3.49 2.97 2.49 1.71 1.37 0.65 -0.05 0 0 0 0

Table 4
These data points, for Activity 1-3, correspond to the following force-time graph, Graph 4.

## Activity 1-3: Force vs. Time

4 3 Force Exerted on Cart (N) 2 1 0 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 Time (s) 0.8 Cart A Cart B Poly. (Cart A) Poly. (Cart B)

Graph 4
Brenton Sonego n8276447 M8 Practical ENB130

15

## 4.3 ACTIVITY 2-1: CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IN AN INELASTIC COLLISION

Table 5 displays the significant points derived from the software graphing program for Activity 2-1, of which displays the velocity-time relationship of the collision over a 5.0s duration. Time (s) 0.0 0.40 0.70 1.2 1.3 4.4 5.0 Velocity (m s-1) 0.0 0.0 0.89 0.86 0.22 0.0 0.0

Table 5
Correspondingly, these data points produce the following velocity-time graph, Graph 5.

## Activity 2-1: Velocity vs. Time

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 -0.2 1 2 Time (s) 3 4 5 Velocity-Time Poly. (Velocity-Time)

Velocity (m s-1)

Graph 5

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

16

## 5.0 DATA ANALYSIS

The analysis of these collisions, both mathematically and visually, will demonstrate and verify the laws and theories of motion. Noticeably, a polynomial trendline is evident within each graph. This form of trendline has been applied as the collision outcomes, provided by the computer software, are continually changing throughout the duration of the collision, of which a polynomial trendline has a high suitability.
5.1 ACTIVITY 1-1 AND ACTIVITY 1-3

Within Activity 1-1 and Activity 1-3, all scenarios had comparable results, whereby each scenario coincided with Newtons third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction). Perceptibly from graph 1, 2, 3 and 4, the magnitude of the force exerted by cart A on cart B directly corresponds to the force exerted by cart B on cart A; however, the force exerted by cart B on cart A is oppositely directed. As these outcomes are in accordance with Newtons third law, it is believed that these results are accurate. Table 1, 2, 3 and 4 displays the forces exerted on both bodies at specific time periods. Noticeably, the forces exerted on each body at specific times are of equal magnitude and opposite direction. This concept of equal and opposite forces is further emphasised by the polynomial trendlines for cart A and B, of which illustrate inverted symmetry. To determine the impulse for scenarios 1, 2 and 3 within Activity 1-1, the integration routine may be used. An integral is informally defined as the net area of the region in the xy plane, bounded by a curve. Since impulse is recognised as the force exerted on a body, multiplied by the duration period of the force, the impulse may thus be determined by calculating the area under a force-time curve. However, as the forces were continually fluctuating throughout the experiment and the software program did not provide a model of the force-time curves, one may simply multiple the average force (mean) by the duration of the collision to determine the impulse in each situation. Scenario 1

## 5.2 ACTIVITY 2-1: CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM IN AN INELASTIC COLLISION

Within this inelastic collision, as the masses of the two carts are already known, and visual Brenton Sonego n8276447 M8 Practical ENB130

17

interpretations of Graph 5 may determine initial and final velocity of the collision, then the initial and final momentum of the collision may be established. Consequently, defining the initial and final momentum will establish whether momentum within this particular collision was conserved. As inelastic collisions may not always conserve kinetic energy, but do conserve momentum, it was predicted that this particular scenario will result in a conservation of momentum.

Evident from Graph 5, Since, Where: ( Substitute in values for each variable. ( ) ( ) )

Therefore, these calculations demonstrate that the momentum within this inelastic collision is conserved, since .

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

18

[1] http://wn.com/Newton's_third_law [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/momentum?view=uk [3] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fluid_dynamics [4] http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Chemistry-Vol-3-Physics-Vol1/Momentum-How-it-works.html [5] physics textbook

## Real world application: eg crumple zones.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/u4l1c.cfm

## Brenton Sonego n8276447

M8 Practical ENB130

19